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

[Steophan]

@Bryan_Ekers

By that standard, can you name one “honest” respondent?

iiandyiiii.

[Evil_Economist]

@dasmoocher

It like if everywhere you go there’s a bad stink, maybe it’s your BO (or in this case, BS) that’s the problem.

My favorite is the Russian version: If three people tell you you’re drunk, go lie down.

[Gyrate]

@Steophan

There’s a lot of people in this thread being dishonest, mainly those who claim that they aren’t anti-police but want to give the cops less protection than other people.

Wanting the police to have a higher level of accountability than other people is not the same thing as saying they should have less protection. We give the police power over us on the condition that they will wield it responsibly, and the burden lies on them to demonstrate that they have done so. They nonetheless receive the same level of due process as anyone else.

[Smapti]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Smapti hasn’t answered, but let me proactively agree with him: those three kids deserved to die and they are lucky they didn’t. First off, they ignored a lawful order from a policeman to stop their car. This obviously makes them criminals just like Tamir Rice - strike one. Second, the police officer has every reason to be afraid of imminent harm to life and limb. These kids were in a car with good tires, not stuck in a ditch between a light pole and and another police cruiser. In that case, they still would have deserved to die for being a threat, but as it was they needed to die with extreme prejudice! Strike 2. The only mitigating factor is their race. If they had been black, it would have been 3 strikes and they would be out of here!

Cute, but wrong.

The key phrase in the article is “off-duty trooper”. This is not a “controversial encounter between law enforcement and civilians” - it’s an encounter between two groups of civilians, one of whom happened to be a cop but was not acting as an agent of the law at the time.

As such it is not relevant to this thread.

[dasmoocher]

@Smapti

Cute, but wrong.

The key phrase in the article is “off-duty trooper”. This is not a “controversial encounter between law enforcement and civilians” - it’s an encounter between two groups of civilians, one of whom happened to be a cop but was not acting as an agent of the law at the time.

As such it is not relevant to this thread.

It reflects on this trooper’s judgement. He’s willing to let shots fly down the street in his neighborhood, but you think his inherent decision making process is different after he’s punched in to work?

[dasmoocher]

Here’s another off duty cop:

‘I’ll put a hole right through your head,’ Mass. police detective tells driver

An off-duty detective in Massachusetts told a driver that he would “put a hole” in the man’s head during a tense evening encounter that was caught on the driver’s dashcam video.

Medford Police Chief Leo Sacco told the Boston Globe that Detective Stephen LeBert was put on leave after the incident, which occurred Sunday night, when LeBert was not on duty.
…
The video shows LeBert in civilian clothes — a tank top and shorts — as he got out of a pickup truck and approached the driver. The driver backed up his vehicle as LeBert approached and pulled out his badge.

LeBert can be heard swearing at the driver in the recording, which apparently began after a possible traffic violation.

“I didn’t know you were a cop,” the driver responded.

“I’ll put a hole right through your head,” LeBert said. “Pull over.”

The exchange continued after the driver moved his vehicle. LeBert continued to curse at the driver, at one point telling him: “You’re lucky I’m a cop because I’d be beating the f—— p— out of you right now.”

“Jeez,” the driver said.

Uniformed officers eventually responded to the scene, and the situation deescalated.

But this is OK, because he was off duty. These cops must have a mental switch they can use when they are on the clock and their judgement becomes unquestionable.

So, Smapti, if these civilians had guns and shot these cops because they “were in fear for their lives”, you would be OK with it, correct?

[Smapti]

@dasmoocher

It reflects on this trooper’s judgement. He’s willing to let shots fly down the street in his neighborhood, but you think his inherent decision making process is different after he’s punched in to work?

They woke him up. I thought we’d already established upthread that human beings are inherently incapable of exercising sound judgment when abruptly awoken, and that it’s unrealistic and insane to expect them to do so, and that anyone who would expect such a thing of them must be insane or a broken shell of a human.

[Smapti]

@dasmoocher

So, Smapti, if these civilians had guns and shot these cops because they “were in fear for their lives”, you would be OK with it, correct?

If those civilians had guns and shot the other civilian because they were in fear of their lives, then they would be entitled to claim self-defense, yes.

[SciFiSam]

@Smapti

They woke him up. I thought we’d already established upthread that human beings are inherently incapable of exercising sound judgment when abruptly awoken, and that it’s unrealistic and insane to expect them to do so, and that anyone who would expect such a thing of them must be insane or a broken shell of a human.

Nope. It’s true that in the moments after being suddenly woken up, your judgment is impaired and you act according to habit and instinct. Everybody does. You do too, despite what you claim.

This man had already got up, walked to the door and spoken to the people he then shot - that’s way longer than “moments,” unless moments can be “several minutes.”

If he was very tired then his judgment might have been impaired to a lesser degree; he could possibly use that as an argument to get a reduced sentence if this ever went to court and he was convicted, which won’t happen.

[dasmoocher]

@Smapti

They woke him up. I thought we’d already established upthread that human beings are inherently incapable of exercising sound judgment when abruptly awoken, and that it’s unrealistic and insane to expect them to do so, and that anyone who would expect such a thing of them must be insane or a broken shell of a human.

Is that a hint of sarcasm?

So you are now saying that with civilians woken up by disturbances in their homes it is not unreasonable if they instinctively fire a weapon at the intruders, correct? :eek:

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@Smapti

They woke him up. I thought we’d already established upthread that human beings are inherently incapable of exercising sound judgment when abruptly awoken, and that it’s unrealistic and insane to expect them to do so, and that anyone who would expect such a thing of them must be insane or a broken shell of a human.

@dasmoocher

Is that a hint of sarcasm?

So you are now saying that with civilians woken up by disturbances in their homes it is not unreasonable if they instinctively fire a weapon at the intruders, correct? :eek:

Or he is being a disingenious prick…your call.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@dasmoocher

Is that a hint of sarcasm?

So you are now saying that with civilians woken up by disturbances in their homes it is not unreasonable if they instinctively fire a weapon at the intruders, correct? :eek:

In Smapti-world, reaching for your glasses on the nightstand is equivalent to grabbing a gun, running out the door and firing off rounds at a carload of teens.

You’re not a shell of a person. You’re a complete and total broken person. You are malfunctioning.
Conversely, I suppose that the proper thing for this guy to do when awoken from sleep would have been to slowly lace his fingers behind his head and lie very still. I admit that that would be preferable to what he did do.

[Fear_Itself]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Conversely, I suppose that the proper thing for this guy to do when awoken from sleep would have been to slowly lace his fingers behind his head and lie very still.

No, that would get him shot too. The cop didn’t say, “Simon Says, lace your fingers behind your head and lie very still!”

[FXMastermind]

The problem with waking an American up from a sound sleep is that he might have a gun in his hand, under the covers, and he might shoot an intruder if they wake him up by breaking into his house.

In civilized nations (like Canada or Europe), when people break into houses they don’t expect the home owner to be armed and willing to defend his home from intruders. But in the USA you actually have the right to defend yourself, with a gun, from anyone who smashes into your home.

That’s why cops are so afraid and angry if you move in any way. You might be trying to exercise your God given right not to have people smash into your bedroom in the middle of the night.

[FXMastermind]

And for those who don’t know, criminals actually will invade a home and kill and rape and pillage. They might even yell that they are police to keep you from shooting them, so they can shoot you first.

It’s a real conundrum.

[Czarcasm]

I bet the break-in rates in countries where the criminals don’t expect the occupants to be armed are much higher per capita than the alternative, because that’s how deterrents work.
Right?

[Chimera]

Eh, don’t worry. If they get scared enough, they’ll just throw a flash-bang grenade in your face before they come in the door.

[FXMastermind]

@Czarcasm

I bet the break-in rates in countries where the criminals don’t expect the occupants to be armed are much higher per capita than the alternative, because that’s how deterrents work.
Right?

If only there were statistics on such things. Then it wouldn’t even be an issue for debate.

[Evil_Economist]

@Chimera

Eh, don’t worry. If they get scared enough, they’ll just throw a flash-bang grenade in your face before they come in the door.

I believe correct policy is to take out the toddlers first, so the flash-bang should go in the crib.

[Evil_Economist]

@FXMastermind

The problem with waking an American up from a sound sleep is that he might have a gun in his hand, under the covers, and he might shoot an intruder if they wake him up by breaking into his house.

Or, apparently, if they wake him by knocking on the door.