Shodan:
Is this the Elie Mystal you are talking about? And here is a fuller example of what he is further proposing -
Regards,
Yes that’s the man. However you snipped out a crucial part of the quote:
interviewer : But then a police person is just gonna argue that you don understand the pressures that i’m under, it’s a split second decision, monday morning quarterbacking, if we do what you just said we’re not gonna be able to do our jobs
EM : Sure. . and I would say, you’ve had your chance, you’ve had your chance to police my community without murdering us and you have failed for 300 years. Enough! That’s what I would say.
that is a man putting words to the frustration that alot of us feel.
You said that no one with an IQ in triple digits would propose to judge cop shootings on anything other than "the facts at hand at the time of the shooting. " and I told you that I hold those beliefs and then gave you a real life smart person - not participating in this BBS RO. I get that you not only don’t agree with this position, but also find it frightening. That doesn’t mean it’s not a real position held by real, thoughtful people.
And it figures you would trot out an Alex Jones type like Jack Marshall and an NRA propaganda rag like Calibre Press to try and discredit Mr Mystal.
You dont like Elie Mystal? Fine. Meet Radley Balko
On the legal side, we need to understand that the Supreme Court doesn’t determine police policies and guidelines, it only sets limits on what the police can do. If the political will were there, any state legislature in the country could pass a law putting more stringent restrictions on the use of lethal force by law enforcement than the Supreme Court laid out in Graham v. Connor. Second, if we’re morally outraged by a police shooting that was found to have fallen within the policies and procedures of the officer’s employing police agency, then we can pressure the agency (or the elected officials who oversee it) to change that policy.
The tide is rising, you better put on some waders!
mc
How about if a person does not recognize them as cops ? If they are in plain clothes, if it’s too dark, or something. You know, a simple mistake, somebody with a gun just appears and you are afraid.
There was a case where two groups of cops thought the other group was crooks and they ended up shooting at each other ( no-on got hurt IIRC ). Were they both right or both wrong ?
Shodan :
SaneBill:
How about if a person does not recognize them as cops ? If they are in plain clothes, if it’s too dark, or something. You know, a simple mistake, somebody with a gun just appears and you are afraid.
There was a case where two groups of cops thought the other group was crooks and they ended up shooting at each other ( no-on got hurt IIRC ). Were they both right or both wrong ?
They were both right, they just had bad aim.
SteveG1
April 13, 2018, 4:42pm
13165
Shodan:
“911, what’s your emergency?”
“My ex-husband is trying to break into my house! He says he’s going to kill me, and he has a CCW permit! Send help!”
“I’m sorry, miss, until you have actually seen the gun, we can’t send the police. Get back to us when he fires a few shots. Have a nice day!”
Regards,
That is correct, under No Duty To Protect
But I don’t think that’s what you were aiming for.
If one side had been better trained, I wonder which side Steo/dan would have been rooting for?
Correction: I meant to say that Calibre Press is a warrior cop propaganda rag.
Even other cops don’t like them:
Sheriff Cancels Calibre Press Training After Public Scrutiny
the Santa Clara County (CA) Sheriff Laurie Smith has nixed hosting a controversial police-training program that elicited outcry from community watchdogs angry over its purported influence on the officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in Minnesota . . .
The agency was scheduled to host a two-day seminar in mid-August with the “Bulletproof” program by Illinois-based Calibre Press, which has been criticized for training officers to channel their feelings of being under constant threat into overly aggressive policing, with sometimes deadly results.
Shodan:
“911, what’s your emergency?”
“My ex-husband is trying to break into my house! He says he’s going to kill me, and he has a CCW permit! Send help!”
“I’m sorry, miss, until you have actually seen the gun, we can’t send the police. Get back to us when he fires a few shots. Have a nice day!”
Regards,
Maybe more like the following:
“911, what’s your emergency?”
“My ex-husband is trying to break into my house! He says he’s going to kill me, and he has a CCW permit! You need to come over here and shoot him immediately!”
“I’m sorry, miss, until you have actually seen the gun and reasonably assessed the threat, we can’t shoot him, but the police are on their way.”
That would actually fit better into the conversation, which is about use of force, not when cops should show up.
Shodan
April 13, 2018, 4:46pm
13169
mikecurtis:
Yes that’s the man. However you snipped out a crucial part of the quote:
interviewer : But then a police person is just gonna argue that you don understand the pressures that i’m under, it’s a split second decision, monday morning quarterbacking, if we do what you just said we’re not gonna be able to do our jobs
EM : Sure. . and I would say, you’ve had your chance, you’ve had your chance to police my community without murdering us and you have failed for 300 years. Enough! That’s what I would say.
that is a man putting words to the frustration that alot of us feel.
No, it’s a moron who doesn’t care if the police can do their job.
No, that’s just blacktivists and related low-life cop-haters who are pissing on my leg.
Regards,
Shodan
April 13, 2018, 4:51pm
13170
You do recognize that you are wrong, don’t you?
What do you think “do not send the cop” means?
Regards,
Fair enough, I missed that part. Sorry for the error.
Still think you’re wrong, broadly speaking, of course.
Looks like we have a conflict of understanding here. Who, exactly, are the people protecting us?
SteveG1
April 13, 2018, 5:23pm
13173
eschereal the seriously twisted:
Looks like we have a conflict of understanding here. Who, exactly, are the people protecting us?
According to the courts, NOBODY .
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the United States Supreme Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County - DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency’s failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child’s right to liberty
and OTHER cases.
Wow, so I guess this is not true either. We are not actually “sending them into danger on your behalf” afterall. They can decide on their own, and in fact, don’t HAVE to do anything. Huh.
meet. . . three white cops
The words “officer safety” do not complete the required articulation; they hardly begin it. But where “officer safety is our number one priority” an officer is explicitly urged to put that concern above all others—including the law we have sworn to obey—and some officers are happy to find this rationalization so conveniently available.
If officer safety were truly the priority for law enforcement officers, we would not do dangerous things . . . although officer safety is always a priority, it is not always the highest priority.
. . .the rights of the people trump the rights of an officer to be guaranteed a safe outcome in dangerous situations. This can be an uncomfortable truth, but to ignore it is to operate in a virtual reality that only exists in one’s own mind. The truth is law enforcement is a hazardous undertaking and there is nothing that can be done to eliminate all of its physical risks.
. . . As in military service, doing our duty and following lawful orders will regularly put us at heightened physical risk.
Solutions
None of this is to suggest we should abandon officer safety concerns. If anything, it should heighten motivation for us to train, condition and prepare even more diligently. Most officers will do just that, but there may always be some who leverage the “officer-safety-first” mindset to systematically violate the rights of others while destroying relational capital and creating friction with our communities.
More demand for accountability and transparency grants us opportunities to build stronger relationships with our communities that enhance officer safety in the most comprehensive sense. This atmosphere expands trust and exposes the true villains in our communities. We are not soldiers fighting a war, but servant leaders striving to find a way to inspire others to be accountable and to participate actively in securing safety and prosperity for all law-abiding community members, including police officers.
If we are truly committed to officer safety, we must commit to a mindset that acknowledges the realities of the operating environment while respecting the rights of the people who trust us to do right by them.
Officer safety must be more than just a mantra. It must represent a commitment to being skilled, conditioned, prepared and invested in positive community relations—and not an excuse to marginalize the concerns of others or disregard the fundamental tenets of our oath. We must find constitutionally compatible protocols for assuring reasonable levels of officer safety.
Police work done well—properly and lawfully—is one of the beautifully noble things under the sun.
meet Johnathan Blanks , a white associate at the Cato Institute
Because we ask police officers to put themselves in harm’s way, they should get some leeway for split-second reactions in situations they perceived to be dangerous. Sometimes those reactions will be wrong, and innocent people will die because of an honest error in judgment that does not necessarily warrant prison time. However, in those circumstances, public safety demands that officers who make those sorts of mistakes even once be removed from the force and from policing. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that if you kill an innocent person, we aren’t going to wait to see if you do it a second or third time. The public shouldn’t have to absorb that risk. And of course, officers who display gross negligence or malice should be prosecuted.
Unfortunately, use-of-force jurisprudence allows police officers to use lethal force at the first instant a suspect flinches or moves in any way that could be construed (or recounted) as hostile. The Blue Wall of Silence then encourages police to support their colleagues’ accounts of events, even when they result in the unnecessary death of an innocent. Laws and policies that protect police leave the door open for less-than-forthright accounts of confrontations that more often than not end in the police officer’s favor.
Although local officials can’t change what’s legal, they can change what’s permitted as a matter of policy. Mayors, city councils, and other policymakers can instruct police agencies to change their rules guiding use of force to require more emphasis and training for deescalation and peaceful conflict resolution.
Police contracts can be negotiated to make it easier to terminate officers who shoot too quickly, even if those contracts retain the same protections against criminal prosecution. Termination should result for any officers named in lawsuits that municipalities settle or lose in excessive force and wrongful death cases. At minimum, such settlements should trigger administrative reviews of the officers named and those cases should be noted in their personnel files.
The available data indicate that current laws and policies make police-involved shootings too common, leaving many families shattered and the general public less safe. Absent radical legal change at the federal level, police departments and local governments can still take steps to reduce the number of police shootings and remove the officers responsible for unnecessary use of force from their ranks.
Whether or not a shooting is legal is a separate question than whether it was right. We need to change use-of-force policies to reflect that.
That is somewhat problematic, though. If a police officer kills a person, they have by definition killed an innocent person, at least with respect to the events in question, as the person cannot have already been convicted of what they are suspected of. Unless, of course, they are an escaped convict.
And lest you think that it’s only white guys saying things need to be changed. . .Shaun King
For all intents and purposes, police brutality is legal in America. . .
What I am about to say in the clearest, most unmistakable terms I’ve ever used on police brutality. Two Supreme Court cases, Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor, have effectively legalized police brutality.
America’s juries are not given the luxury of deciding the guilt or innocence of an officer apart from Tennessee v. Garner or Graham v. Connor. They are consistently instructed that law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force based on what they believed to be happening in that moment. . .
As long as Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor stand as law, police brutality will be protected. That’s the bottom line. . .
It is my belief that we must fully and smartly fund, staff, and direct a full-scale attack on the provisions of Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor which allow law enforcement officers to use lethal force without verifiable evidence that such force is actually necessary. . .
The legal burden for police to be allowed to use lethal force simply must be higher than it is today. It must be an absolute last resort, and what we see, in case after case after case, is that it is not a last resort, but is the first option taken by police. . .
. . .And it should never be OK for any American, including law enforcement officers, to use lethal force in situations where it simply is not necessary.
At least some of the unions are actively opposing body cams, so yes, I imagine they will at minimum be strongly defending cops who turn them off.
I doubt they are (on record) telling them to turn them off if they are breaking the law, they will simply continue to oppose them on principle when just about everyone else wants them in place - including most people in this thread, regardless of what side they are on.
Do you want to defend the unions that are opposing body cameras?
Slash1972:
Wow, so I guess this is not true either. We are not actually “sending them into danger on your behalf” afterall. They can decide on their own, and in fact, don’t HAVE to do anything. Huh.
We are actually employing them to go into danger on our behalf, what we’re not doing is legally compelling them to. They’re not (thankfully) soldiers who can be forced to risk themselves, but they will still have to put themselves at risk to do their job properly.
Steophan:
We are actually employing them to go into danger on our behalf, what we’re not doing is legally compelling them to. They’re not (thankfully) soldiers who can be forced to risk themselves, but they will still have to put themselves at risk to do their job properly.
No actually, they don’t HAVE to. Sorry, you are wrong again.
