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

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@eschereal

The taser ended up being moot, as the gunfire followed hard upon.

So what was that fucking rant about how tasers don’t function by causing pain? Are you seriously trying to get anyone to believe that you weren’t criticizing me for dismissing tasers as an option (when I was actually saying that tasers are a great option sometimes)/ Its OK to admit you made a fucking mistake and it only makes you look like a retard to pretend that you were right all along in some way.

More straw-manning.

No straw manning. Your recent rant in support of tasering in response to MY support of tasering shows how fucking retarded guys like you can get.

We want the police to practice due restraint. Their hair-trigger is a problem, possibly going back decades, from before there were cameras everywhere. More importantly, they seem to close ranks and protect their own when rough shit goes down. That remains a huge problem that has led many of us to stop trusting their side of the story. The case of Walter Scott would have been cut and dried, receiving near zero coverage, were it not for the video, and the other officer on the scene almost certainly would have backed up the shooter’s story, leaving the investigation no traction. How many other stories have there been that have been filed away with half an inch on the police reports on page 9? We can never be sure.

Sure I agree with all of that with the caveat that I think a policeman has just as much of a right to defend themselves as anyone else. But that doesn’t give you an excuse to leave your brain at the door. Brain farts happen, denying that you have them when you clearly did, makes people think that maybe it wasn’t a brain fart or the result of emotion overcoming reason but mere stupidity.

Yes, it is entirely natural for colleagues to have each others’ backs, but police work is not just any old job. When they have the official power of life and death on the streets, they need to be held to a higher standard.

I don’t think its natural for people to lie about the criminal activity of their colleagues. I don’t think it should be tolerated any more than any other form of corruption.

They must not be allowed to continue to have their own Department of Internal Affairs,

Why not? Internal affairs is usually run by independent investigators. If you want some independent body that looks into police abuse, we already have a justice department division of civil rights. We can expand that to be sure but considering that we have over 1000 police killings and several times that number of police shootings, what are you suggesting? Making the IA more independent? Turn the DOJ civil rights division the national IA department for every police shooting? How about complaints of police brutality, or are we only concerned about cases where someone is killed?

or have their own testimony rank higher than any other person’s (including that nasty coke dealer).

It doesn’t. Have you ever been involved in a trial where a cop is testifying? The court emphasizes early and often fact that they are a police officer should have no bearing on their credibility. If you are complaining that jurors go ahead and do this anyway then what are you proposing? or are you just bitching and moaning that no one trusts coke dealers?

We are quick to proclaim them guilty because they have demonstrated time and again that they are often untrustworthy, irresponsible and very difficult to scrutinize.

So cops are not innocent until proven guilty? So we can assume the guilt of a cop in Oklahoma because there was a bad cop in North Carolina?

ISTM that part of your complaint is that cops are exercising this sort of prejudice towards blacks because some black guy killed a cop sometime somewhere.

Because you have no concept of empathy, you bleeding asshole shitbag.

Your arguments suck. They make you look retarded. I say that blacks can be forgiven for irrationality because of how this impact them directly but the folks wallowing in white liberal guilt cannot. And you think this is a lack of empathy? I am guessing that you are a retarded white person wracked by white liberal guilt. IMO irrationality requires extraordinary justification.

I will let you know after she is tried. If she is convicted, we will be somewhat satisfied. But that seems unlikely. Officers may be charged for misbehavior, but convictions are very rare.

So first you say she isn’t going to get indicted, you know, because the system is corrupt. And I suppose that was a reasonable guess if you believe whatever hyperbole the media is using to sell advertising time. But now that she has been indicted you think the system is STILL corrupt unless she gets convicted? My guess is that she will be convicted of second degree manslaughter.

And if she gets convicted of second degree manslaughter I am going to guess that you are going to say that the system is still corrupt if she get probation and doesn’t actually serve time in jail (which is not uncommon for first offenders of second degree manslaughter).

[k9bfriender]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Where did I defend the officers for macing the handcuffed girl? You keep getting me confused with someone else. This is like the third time you have said this and this is the third time I have asked for a cite. Can you point me to the offending post where I say that its OK to mace someone who is handcuffed to a chair?

Sorry, I did not see you ask for a cite before, I thought you were just ignoring it. I glanced back through your posts, and still did not see that request, but I must have missed it. In your post you dismissed the torture as no consequence. This is defending the torturer. If you have any other reasons for so cavalierly dismissing her torment, let me know. It did strike me as if you were speaking up for the officer.

Its a civil case, not criminal. If you don’t understand why that difference is important than just ask.

Okay, I’ll bite. Why do you need to be criminally convicted in order to be fired? Is this a law? Is this a policy? Is this part of the police union’s protections?
Do you think that civil cases don’t have any merit, and that only a criminal conviction has any bearing?

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Upon preponderance of the evidence, but I’ve explained that to you a few times now. Do you know what “preponderance of the evidence” means?

They can certainly be fired without a criminal conviction. They can be fired for violating policy. You have not proven they violated policy. You have only proven that a civil court awarded the plaintiff $4 million.

I have proved nothing. The plaintiff proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that they shoved a screwdriver in his ass.
Unless policy is to shove a screwdriver into another human being’s ass, then that is a violation. What part of this are you not understanding?

I find the civil court proceeding of minimal probative value. I think there is enough there to put them at a desk instead of on the street but I have said that twice now and you seem to ignore this because I don’t think they should have their lives ruined before we know what happened.

Why do you find the proceeding of minimal probative value? That does not make much sense, as the court found the evidence to be compelling. Do you have evidence that was not presented to the court? Do you have arguments that were not presented to the court that would have exonerated these cops?

A civil court award may be enough to establish fact for you but it is not for me.

Its enough to make me take precautions like I have said three times now but its not enough for me to ruin their lives. Cops are entitled to the same due process as anyone else.

So you are saying that in order to be removed from the police force, you feel that they need to be convicted in criminal court? That without that conviction, there is no reason to fire them? That even though evidence was presented and accepted and found to be true by the court, it is not enough for you? What do you think happens in civil court?
Why are you even willing to “take precautions” if you don’t have any reason to believe that they did in fact violate another human’s right to not have a screwdriver shoved up his ass?

Now, I am actually citing other posters on this, but like I said, I was assured that even without a criminal conviction, police can be and are fired for violating department policy. This was stated and not contradicted by a few of our legal peoples on this board, so I am actually out of my depth on whether or not a cop can legally be fired even without a criminal conviction. On the one hand, there is Bricker and Loach, and a few others, and the other hand is you, not meaning to appeal to authority here, but these legal matters are in fact above my head, if any of the legal peoples want to weigh in, especially those who shut down my argument in another thread by assuring me that police are disciplined and fired, even if they do not get convicted or even prosecuted.

Now, I ask you. What evidence do YOU need? Do you require a criminal conviction before a police officer is fired? If so, why do you feel that they should be treated better than anyone else in any other job?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@eschereal

I am saying that we cannot possibly know what went on on the port side of that van, other than a guy is lying on the pavement with a gunshot wound to his torso and there is a bloodstain on the door of the van when the helicopter has come around again. We do not know the facts, only what the officers have told us – and at least one of them claimed stress deafness, so we cannot guess how reliable any of the others may be. The dashcam video offers nothing of value. So your claim or mine as to what actually happened and what might have been said or shouted is pure speculation. But, whatever.

There are plenty of facts and plenty of things we can logically deduce from those facts. We know he put down his hands. We know that the window was proabbl;y. We know that a taser was shot and that was followed shortly by a single gunshot. If it was really threatening, then why wasn’t there a hail of bullets coming from the other half dozen officers at the scene? Its not “whatever” there are things we can point to and say The window was up. None of the other officers shot. There was no gun. The suspect disobeyed police commands. Officer Shelby was obviously shaken up after the shooting. The suspect was on PCP.

In balance that leads me to think that justice would be done with a second degree manslaughter conviction with 4 years probation and no actual jail time. Officer Shelby is off the force and she can try to put her life back together in a new career.

[Czarcasm]

Apparently one can be on PCP and not be a rampaging superhuman killing machine, according to that video. So much for using it as an excuse to empty the clip.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Starving_Artist

Well, reasonable people can disagree, but I think that when a suspect deliberately and in contravention of police orders takes his hands out of sight he does post an imminent threat of grave injury or death.

I guess we will see.

I would disagree with this also. Police officers are under much greater threat of violence than is the average citizen due to the fact that they’re often dealing with people who’re desperate either not to get caught doing something that would send them to jail or not to be apprehended for outstanding warrants that will send them to jail. Desperate people do desperate things and trying to harm or kill cops in order to escape arrest is one of them. Cops also come in for more anger and attitude than do the average bear and this also puts them at greater for assault or murder from people who resent their authority or reputation as assholes. Thus there is an expanded set of circumstances under which the police may rightfully feel themselves to be at mortal risk. As I said before, this is one more reason why compliance is so important. It isn’t possible for citizens to know all the things that cops can consider threatening so the best and safest thing for them to do is obey the orders the police give them. If the cops say to take your hands out of your pocket or keep them in plain sight or don’t step behind the car or don’t reach into the car, they can’t be blamed if the suspect deliberately defies them and does so anyway and winds up getting shot. The average citizen isn’t likely even to find himself in a situation where he’d be at risk from someone not showing his hands; the police are with every person they confront. So it’s incorrect and unfair to draw an equivalence between the two.

I am saying that the standards for the use of deadly force is the same between the two. If a private citizen couldn’t shoot, then neither can a cop. I agree that cops are more likely to encounter situations where they can shoot but the standard is the same.

Or can you cite to anything that says that cops can exercise deadly force in a situations where they don’t meet the standards of imminent threat of death or grave injury?

I don’t know that this is correct. Tasers are not as reliably effective as guns for stopping lethal threats. Their barbs can hit obstacles in a person’s clothing or miss them altogether and then the cop is screwed. It’s been my impression that tasers are intended primarily to be a non-lethal way of subduing a suspect who’s resisting arrest rather that to serve as a substitute for firearms in the even of potential deadly threat. I could be wrong and would welcome correction from a knowledgeable source, but as of now I believe I’m correct.

You don’t use a taser when its time to use a gun. You use a taser way before its time to use a gun.

I doubt seriously that they’re training them in any such way. It isn’t possible to anticipate and train for every combination of unusual circumstances that might arise on. What they do is train that if a suspect reaches into his pockets or into a car or tries to disappear behind a car or trash dumpster or other obstacle that takes him momentarily out of sight and he does this in direct contravention of their orders not to do so, they are to consider that action as a deadly threat. Crutcher’s reaching for the door and attempting to gain entry into the vehicle is why Shelby shot him, and the fact he was simultaneously tasered demonstrates that his actions were considered by both officers to have reached the point where they had become a threat and had to be stopped.

The trigger level for tasering is different than the trigger level for shooting. If the threat level had reached the level that justified the application of lethal force, then why was there one and only one bullet fired? Why didn’t Terence Crutcher go down in a hail of bullets from the other officers at the scene?

There was no reason for advance training to cover the possibility that at some point in the future backup may be called and at the precise moment the suspect defies police orders and makes a threatening movement there will be six cops available to stop him, and that since five will have tasers ready everyone should coordinate on the spur of the moment to ensure that a taser-bearing cop will be the one to fire first, and if need be second, third, forth, etc. Your belief seems to be that whatever could be done that would result in the subject not being shot is unquestionably what should be done in every and all circumstances, but the police in the heat of the moment lack the benefit of 20/20 hindsight which would tell them what actions would have had the best outcome. So again, compliance is the answer.

Anticipating the presence of back-up with tasers when you have a police force that is armed with tasers is not some unlikely event that only seems clear with 20/20 hindsight.

In the absence of compliance, tasers are the answer as long as there is not an imminent threat. That entire walk back to the car was an invitation to taser Crutcher. that’s not Monday morning quarterbacking. We have some cops in this thread. Maybe they can chime in and say whether Crutcher should have been tasered before he even reached his car if he was disobeying orders to get on the ground?

People need to be educating their kids, and teachers need to be educating their kids, and buddies need to be educating their buddies, that if a cop stops you the safest and most important thing you can do is comply with his instructions.

Of course compliance is the best way to handle an encounter with the police but non-compliance does not lower the standards for use of lethal force. Some significant minority of the situations that BLM is protesting are situations where the victim was obeying police commands at the time they were shot but I don’t think you were saying that compliance would make you immune from harm.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@septimus

OK. Can they be requested by plaintiff’s attorneys pursuing a charge of police brutality?

In a civil case? I don’t know. I would guess it depends on the state.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@k9bfriender

Sorry, I did not see you ask for a cite before, I thought you were just ignoring it. I glanced back through your posts, and still did not see that request, but I must have missed it. In your post you dismissed the torture as no consequence. This is defending the torturer. If you have any other reasons for so cavalierly dismissing her torment, let me know. It did strike me as if you were speaking up for the officer.

Geez another fucking retard who leaves reason and rationality at the door.

How does that post dismiss torture as no consequence?

WTF does the UC Davis pepper spraying have to do with pepper spraying a woman handcuffed to her chair?

How the fuck do you get from my post deriding a poster for describing pepper spray as “industrial strength pepper spray” (when there are more powerful pepper sprays available from AMAZON)?

As with others, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had a brain fart and temporarily lost the power to read and reason. Would you like to rephrase your statement?

Okay, I’ll bite. Why do you need to be criminally convicted in order to be fired? Is this a law? Is this a policy? Is this part of the police union’s protections?
Do you think that civil cases don’t have any merit, and that only a criminal conviction has any bearing?

Of course civil cases have merit but you are treating the results of a civil case as if it establishes fact. It doesn’t. It establishes probability.

Considering that civil cases only establish probability, do you think we should fire police officers because they probably did something wrong?

Upon preponderance of the evidence, but I’ve explained that to you a few times now. Do you know what “preponderance of the evidence” means?

Yes, do you?

I have proved nothing. The plaintiff proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that they shoved a screwdriver in his ass.
Unless policy is to shove a screwdriver into another human being’s ass, then that is a violation. What part of this are you not understanding?

They proved to a jury that they probably shoved a screwdriver up his ass. He spent a night in jail, there are other ways to get a torn rectum in jail.

When you said: “Violating department procedures and costing the department 4 million is a valid reason. You can bet that if I had an employee that violated my policies and got me sued, they’d be all kinds of fired, even if we won the suit.” You were talking about the screwdriver in the ass? That is a really roundabout way of saying police brutality. But if that is what you meant, then OK.

Why do you find the proceeding of minimal probative value? That does not make much sense, as the court found the evidence to be compelling. Do you have evidence that was not presented to the court? Do you have arguments that were not presented to the court that would have exonerated these cops?

The civil court can only establish that the evidence favors one side or the other. You are acting like it establishes fact.

So you are saying that in order to be removed from the police force, you feel that they need to be convicted in criminal court? That without that conviction, there is no reason to fire them? That even though evidence was presented and accepted and found to be true by the court, it is not enough for you? What do you think happens in civil court?

things are established by the preponderance of the evidence. That means that the jury believes that evidence shows that there is over a 50% chance that the cops shoved a screwdriver up the guy’s ass.

Why are you even willing to “take precautions” if you don’t have any reason to believe that they did in fact violate another human’s right to not have a screwdriver shoved up his ass?

Because there is evidence that it probably happened.

Now, I am actually citing other posters on this, but like I said, I was assured that even without a criminal conviction, police can be and are fired for violating department policy.

They still have to prove that they violated department policy. Its not enough that they can point to a civil judgment that says it probably happened.

This was stated and not contradicted by a few of our legal peoples on this board, so I am actually out of my depth on whether or not a cop can legally be fired even without a criminal conviction. On the one hand, there is Bricker and Loach, and a few others, and the other hand is you, not meaning to appeal to authority here, but these legal matters are in fact above my head, if any of the legal peoples want to weigh in, especially those who shut down my argument in another thread by assuring me that police are disciplined and fired, even if they do not get convicted or even prosecuted.

For example a police officer might not be convicted of a crime for engaging a suspect without back up and then killing him in self defense. But if that was a violation of police policy then the police could still punish him for that.

Now, I ask you. What evidence do YOU need? Do you require a criminal conviction before a police officer is fired? If so, why do you feel that they should be treated better than anyone else in any other job?

The article says there was fecal matter found in the glove compartment. If that fecal matter matched the Coffie’s DNA, I would consider that enough.

If the police officers got indicted, I would suspend them without pay.

Every time you are about to say, these officers sodomized Coffie with a screwdriver, insert the phrase most of the jurors thought that these police officers probably sodomized Coffie.

It may very well turn out that they did but we are not there yet, right now we are at “they probably did”

[k9bfriender]

@Damuri_Ajashi

How does that post dismiss torture as no consequence?

WTF does the UC Davis pepper spraying have to do with pepper spraying a woman handcuffed to her chair?

In reading back through the thread, I find I should apologize. I had conflated the two macing events. I was talking about the girl in the chair, and rick kitchen posted about the UC incident,and you responded to that as the post immediately following mine about the chair incident. I thought we were still talking about the incident with the chair restraint, I was incorrect.

How the fuck do you get from my post deriding a poster for describing pepper spray as “industrial strength pepper spray” (when there are more powerful pepper sprays available from AMAZON)?

It was not the question on the strength of spray, it was the “You know there is a difference between getting shot and getting pepper sprayed, right?” comment that struck me. As if being pepper sprayed in the face is no big deal.
I still feel your comment minimizes the actions of the officer, in a “If your not being shot, what do you have to complain about?” type deal.

Oh, and for the record, this cop was in fact fired for his actions, even though he was not convicted of any crime, just a civil suit.

Of course civil cases have merit but you are treating the results of a civil case as if it establishes fact. It doesn’t. It establishes probability.

Considering that civil cases only establish probability, do you think we should fire police officers because they probably did something wrong?

If you asking my opinion, then yes, they should be fired for probably doing something wrong. Police are supposed to be held to a high standard, and if the probably did something wrong, then that should be enough to remove them from the force.

If you are asking what the legal position is, then I don’t know the answer.

They proved to a jury that they probably shoved a screwdriver up his ass. He spent a night in jail, there are other ways to get a torn rectum in jail.

When you said: “Violating department procedures and costing the department 4 million is a valid reason. You can bet that if I had an employee that violated my policies and got me sued, they’d be all kinds of fired, even if we won the suit.” You were talking about the screwdriver in the ass? That is a really roundabout way of saying police brutality. But if that is what you meant, then OK.

My point here is that if I had an employee who violated my policies and got me sued, I would fire them. I would fight the suit, and if I won, they would still be fired. It is up to only my own preponderance of the evidence to determine whether or not I should fire an employee. I may even find myself in a position where I don’t think the employee did it, but in order to maintain my reputation, I would still fire them, if there is enough evidence that a majority of other who look at it believe it to be true.
Policing is much more important than dog grooming. Officers that make the department look bad should be fired even if their colleagues and bosses don’t believe the allegations. That’s part of having a positive relationship with the community.

The civil court can only establish that the evidence favors one side or the other. You are acting like it establishes fact.

things are established by the preponderance of the evidence. That means that the jury believes that evidence shows that there is over a 50% chance that the cops shoved a screwdriver up the guy’s ass.

Because there is evidence that it probably happened.

And that’s the part that I am talking about. It probably happened. That should be enough.
A civil finding is enough to garnish your wages, repossess your house or car, or even take away your children. But it is not enough to fire someone? This I do not believe. (Or maybe I just don’t wish to believe it.)

They still have to prove that they violated department policy. Its not enough that they can point to a civil judgment that says it probably happened.

But a jury saying that they probably performed actions that are in violation of department policy is not enough? Who needs to do this proving, and how much proof do you really need?

For example a police officer might not be convicted of a crime for engaging a suspect without back up and then killing him in self defense. But if that was a violation of police policy then the police could still punish him for that.

But if he were not convicted, then how would it be determined that they violated department policy? What standard of proof would you be looking for in that situation?

The article says there was fecal matter found in the glove compartment. If that fecal matter matched the Coffie’s DNA, I would consider that enough.

Does fecal matter even have usable DNA? The fact that he made the complaint, and they had a screwdriver with fecal material on it is pretty damning. How would he have known that they even had a screwdriver with them, much less that it would have fecal materiel on it, if it were not used on him?
And he made this report when he was booked into jail, where he then spent the night, so it was not a matter of it happening while he was in jail.

If the police officers got indicted, I would suspend them without pay.

Every time you are about to say, these officers sodomized Coffie with a screwdriver, insert the phrase most of the jurors thought that these police officers probably sodomized Coffie.

I’ll insert the phrase “Upon examination of the evidence, both for and against the defendants, the jurors found that is was more likely than not that these officers violated another human being by shoving a screwdriver into his ass.” If that is alright with you.

It may very well turn out that they did but we are not there yet, right now we are at “they probably did”

It was 12 years ago, they are still on the force. No disciplinary action was taken. No criminal case was pursued. It was not until 3 years later then he got a lawyer to take his case and sue the department that any of this evidence was even looked at by a judge or jury.
Let’s say that fecal material does have usable DNA, and that that DNA was found in the glove box, how would you suggest that things should proceed if the DA won’t take a case against the police?

[elucidator]

So, it looks like the strategy is nitpick every reported incident to death. one at a time, taking about fifteen pages to do it. Stacking implausible rationalizations on top of a foundation of flimsy assumptions. To what end?

Our fellow Americans of the brownish persuasions assemble to petition for a redress of grievances. At the very least, we are obliged to listen. I have, and it seems to me in the broader perspective, they have a legitimate beef.

Kinda like the historical meme about the white man eradicating the buffalo. For which we have photos, documents, first hand testimony, and acres of buffalo skeletons. So, we say the white man wiped out the buffalo. And then somebody comes along, finds a Clovis point arrowhead in one of the skeletons and shouts “Aha! An arrowhead, which proves that this buffalo was on PCP…no, wait, this buffalo was killed by an American Indian! So the white man did not wipe out the buffalo!” Victory dance ensues.

OK, that’s a wild exaggeration, nobody here would make an argument that fucking stupid!

[slumtrimpet]

^^ Goddamnit. Why can’t we have an up arrow or something to indicate when we think a post is brilliant?

[Acsenray]

@slumtrimpet

^^ Goddamnit. Why can’t we have an up arrow or something to indicate when we think a post is brilliant?

You can on Tapatalk.

[Acsenray]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Of course civil cases have merit but you are treating the results of a civil case as if it establishes fact. It doesn’t. It establishes probability.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Civil cases find facts, just as criminal cases do. They use a different standard for proof, but the distinction you make is wrong. Dead wrong.

Considering that civil cases only establish probability, do you think we should fire police officers because they probably did something wrong?

People lose their jobs all the time based on standards of proof lower than that of criminal trials. The standard of proof for a criminal trial is the standard of proof for a criminal trial, not the standard of proof for anything else, including employment actions against cops.

Why do you want to give cops a level of protection against adverse employment decisions that no one else gets?

Indeed, in my view, because cops are given the power to use deadly force in the name of the state, the should be subject to a more strict standard than a shout working at McDonald’s.

[Evil_Economist]

@Starving_Artist

It’s completely escaped your notice that you’re the only one who keeps trying to come back to this. No else gives a shit.

I’ve noticed you in a couple of other threads discussing your fascinating ideas about rape, so apparently it bothered you that I was the only one coming back to this.

Before I came to the realization that you’re simply stupid, I would have called you a sociopathic asshole for the things you’re saying in those other threads. But I now realize that you’re just too stupid to know how evil the things you’re saying are, you poor stupid man. Starving Artist, professional idiot. Sad.

[dasmoocher]

Starving Artist is the best police apologist! The best! So true; believe me! So sad about Rosie O’Donnell… Starving Artist has done a tremendous job apologizing for the police. Yuuugely successful job! Like Trump’s hands! The best job in all of history!!! You know what I’m talking about!

[Starving_Artist]

Hey guys, good news! PCP-crazed asshat beats cop to within inch of her life. She doesn’t shoot for fear of backlash. Don’t you just love a happy ending!

SEE IT: Man beats Chicago police officer who refused to shoot him for fear of...

[Evil_Economist]

@Starving_Artist

Hey guys, good news! PCP-crazed asshat beats cop to within inch of her life. She doesn’t shoot for fear of backlash. Don’t you just love a happy ending!

Here’s what someone else had to say about that:

@Starving_Artist

Meh. Different circumstances, different result.

But that guy seemed pretty stupid, so you shouldn’t listen to him.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[quote=“k9bfriender, post:9769, topic:700942”]

In reading back through the thread, I find I should apologize. I had conflated the two macing events. I was talking about the girl in the chair, and rick kitchen posted about the UC incident,and you responded to that as the post immediately following mine about the chair incident. I thought we were still talking about the incident with the chair restraint, I was incorrect.{/quote]

I appreciate that. It probably doesn’t matter to you but I out people who acknowledge their mistakes in a separate category, especially on this board where liberals can pretend they never made a mistake and get away with it.

It was not the question on the strength of spray, it was the “You know there is a difference between getting shot and getting pepper sprayed, right?” comment that struck me. As if being pepper sprayed in the face is no big deal.
I still feel your comment minimizes the actions of the officer, in a “If your not being shot, what do you have to complain about?” type deal.

Oh, and for the record, this cop was in fact fired for his actions, even though he was not convicted of any crime, just a civil suit.

UC Davis pepper spray incident

I don't think that pepper spray was called for but watch the youtube video if you have a moment. You may not know everything there is to know about the UC Davis incident. If you ever wondered what white privilege looks like, the video is a pretty clear example. I can't imagine a bunch of black 19-22 year olds thinking they can get away with encircling cops and not letting them leave unless they release the other 19-22 year olds they just arrested.

If it was my kid that got pepper sprayed, I would be pissed. The cops should have arrested all those kids and let them spend a few nights in jail. But black kids don’t get to pull this sort of bullshit with a bunch of cops an just spend a few night in jail with their friends or just get pepper sprayed.

…I may even find myself in a position where I don’t think the employee did it, but in order to maintain my reputation, I would still fire them, if there is enough evidence that a majority of other who look at it believe it to be true.
Policing is much more important than dog grooming. Officers that make the department look bad should be fired even if their colleagues and bosses don’t believe the allegations. That’s part of having a positive relationship with the community.

If your instinct is to throw officers under the bus as soon as they might hurt your reputation with the community even when you think they are innocent then you had better be in a upper middle class neighborhood or be ready to have your officers walk out on you. You’re their boss, you’re supposed to protect them if they are innocent.

But you are entitled to your opinion on how police departments should handle personnel matters. I would like more information before I ruin a couple of careers, you think you have enough.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Acsenray

You have no idea what you are talking about. Civil cases find facts, just as criminal cases do. They use a different standard for proof, but the distinction you make is wrong. Dead wrong.

In the sense that the jury is a finder of fact. yes. But if that was actually a FACT then why couldn’t the DA take that decision into a criminal court and say “see, its a fact”

Oh that’s right its just a fact for the purposes of that case.

You are responding to a post where I say that the poster in question is treating the jury finding of fact (which requires that more than half the jury think that something probably happened) as if it was actually a fact. So in the context of the post you are responding to, you might want to rethink whether what you say makes any fucking sense at all.

People lose their jobs all the time based on standards of proof lower than that of criminal trials. The standard of proof for a criminal trial is the standard of proof for a criminal trial, not the standard of proof for anything else, including employment actions against cops.

Sure, I can agree with that. I don’t think there is enough there to fire cops. I think you at least need an internal finding of misconduct and the internal investigation found that the charges could not be sustained (maybe that means something other than what I think it means). That internal finding can be overturned by subsequent events but losing a civil case where the majority of a jury thinks that something probably happened doesn’t seem to be enough to overturn the results of that internal decision. A conviction or even an indictment might change matters but a civil lawsuit?

Why do you want to give cops a level of protection against adverse employment decisions that no one else gets?

A) they negotiated for it.

B) it is not in the public interest to throw cops under the bus every time the city loses a lawsuit after an internal investigation shows that the charges cannot be sustained.

Indeed, in my view, because cops are given the power to use deadly force in the name of the state, the should be subject to a more strict standard than a shout working at McDonald’s.

Higher standards are fine but you still have to prove they didn’t meet those higher standards.

Maybe they did it but I would need more, a civil award does not establish their guilt sufficiently to force action contrary to an internal investigation. The City obviously didn’t think they did it or the jury would never have had a chance to render a verdict in all likelihood. There would have been a settlement and the officers would have been given an opportunity to retire. But that’s not what happened. The City of Chicago decided to fight it all the way to verdict (what percentage of cases do you think go all the way to verdict?) and then decided to keep the two officers on their payroll. But you’re pretty sure they should get fired anyway, right?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

So, it looks like the strategy is nitpick every reported incident to death. one at a time, taking about fifteen pages to do it. Stacking implausible rationalizations on top of a foundation of flimsy assumptions. To what end?

Our fellow Americans of the brownish persuasions assemble to petition for a redress of grievances. At the very least, we are obliged to listen. I have, and it seems to me in the broader perspective, they have a legitimate beef.

Kinda like the historical meme about the white man eradicating the buffalo. For which we have photos, documents, first hand testimony, and acres of buffalo skeletons. So, we say the white man wiped out the buffalo. And then somebody comes along, finds a Clovis point arrowhead in one of the skeletons and shouts “Aha! An arrowhead, which proves that this buffalo was on PCP…no, wait, this buffalo was killed by an American Indian! So the white man did not wipe out the buffalo!” Victory dance ensues.

OK, that’s a wild exaggeration, nobody here would make an argument that fucking stupid!

I don’t know who you are talking about but if its me. I think it that there is a real problem. I think that cops should all wear body cams. I think that cops should ideally get a lot more counseling and training but I also think that these things are expensive compared to body cams so I will give a department a temporary pass if they just implement best practices with body cams.

I don’t think that this problem justifies crucifying every cop that BLM thinks is guilty of murder. I don’t think any of this justifies rioting and looting. I don’t think BLM protests have anything approaching an average risk of rioting and looting arising from their protests.

[Evil_Economist]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I don’t think that this problem justifies crucifying every cop that BLM thinks is guilty of murder.

Could you please cite every poster here who, according to you, thinks we should crucify every cop that BLM thinks is guilty of murder?

I don’t think any of this justifies rioting and looting.

Could you cite every poster here who thinks it does justify rioting and looting?

I’m just asking because you seem to have pretty strong opinions about other people’s opinions. But last time I asked you to cite the people who were protesting Crutcher’s tasing rather than his shooting you gave me, I think, 5 names, of which all but one said you completely misinterpreted them