It’s interesting how often police defense resort to something along these lines, ‘the police are there to enforce laws, not make them.’ Yet in practice, the police have wide discretion whether or not to follow the law and whether or not to enforce the law. For example, if you’re a queer person being threatened by some locals, in many places the police are unlikely to do anything but tell you to act ‘normal’ or leave, and won’t even write a ticket for the attackers, much less arrest them. There’s no law requiring one to be polite to the police and there are laws against police singling people out or just beating them, but if you are rude you can expect at best harassment and at worst torture and lethal violence from the police. In the case someone gave as an example of good behavior by detectives, when the bad cops decided to assault an innocent person the detectives failed to arrest them or file a formal report, they just informally talked to the other cops.
Police actions often do not comply with the law, and falling back on ‘they’re required to enforce laws’ is not a reasonable defense.
Oh look! Another (unidentified) cop not getting free vacation after shooting an unarmed teenager! It’s crazy how people think the police get special treatment when it comes to slaughtering children.
So the 28-year old police officer who fatally shot the man in Arizona who was forced to crawl on the floor while pleading for his life is now getting a tax-free $31,000 disability pension for life. He was fired and is “ineligible to be hired again by Mesa” PD, but was inexplicably allowed to be temporarily rehired so he could apply for a disability pension. What’s the officer’s disability, you might ask? PTSD from shooting his victim. :rolleyes:
I mentioned this thread to my wife, and she found the story online right away.
As it turns out, I got some of the details wrong, likely because it happened over six years ago.
The man was not “off his meds,” just emotionally distraught after a bitter divorce. And he didn’t have a knife, either – just a stick he had picked up. There were two state police troopers who responded; neither were closer than 30 feet away at the time of the shooting, according to cell phone video.
The trooper who shot the man fired four times. The fatal shot struck the man in the back as he was attempting to run away. :dubious: Despite the $950,000 settlement paid by the state to the man’s family in a wrongful death lawsuit, the trooper was found to be justified in the shooting under the criminal statutes.
This story really bothered my wife. She just can’t understand why the police felt they had to shoot and kill an unarmed man standing 30 feet away in the middle of a field. The fact that the trooper shot the man in the back makes it even worse.
For me it boils down to the hypocrisy you see between two identical cases…
A cop gets gunned down in a convenience store by some scumbag trying to steal $200 out of the register? let’s call in the local cops, the sheriff’s department, the state police, and let’s set up a roadblock and get it on the news 24/7.
A poor store-clerk making minimum wage for his wife and kids gets gunned down in a convenience store by some scumbag trying to steal $200 out of the register?
umm, herp derp “the police are seeking the public’s help in finding a person of interest, between 5’1” and 7’2", between 120 and 380 lbs, wearing a shirt and shorts"
The hypocrisy between the two situations is on my short list of things in this world that chap my ass.
There’s actually another group that tends to protect their own : doctors.
As for cops, I’ve worked and do work where I do need to call them. Mostly they’re fine, though my employer did file a formal complaint when a cop refused to intervene in a domestic fight. Watching a cop lay into a college student who kept trying to walk past us into the store whenever we unlocked the door to let customers out was a thing of beauty, though. “They are closed. What aren’t you understanding? Why do you think you’re so important that they have to delay going home to serve you?”
Pretty sure this was a matter of what was cheaper, the disability pension or the lawsuits for his now questionably justified termination. Once found not guilty, much of the basis for his termination fell apart.
If anything this is a better case study for why you let the process run its course before taking decisive action that can blow up in your face later.
Granted, I don’t think the guy has much business being a cop anymore, but I can see where it comes out as more cost practical for the city to do this.