True, but I think that misses the point. It is unconstitutional to jail a person until an ability to pay hearing can happen or to arrest them before a bench warrant has been issued just because they appear in a database of people who haven’t paid a fine. If I understand correctly, what they do in the roadblocks in Madison County is check the person’s name in a court database concerning fines, and then arrest and jail them (or merely shake them down). I don’t think that practice can survive constitutional scrutiny.
Poorer towns are more likely to raise their revenue by going after poverty offenses with huge fines and dubious application of Bearden? I don’t see why that should be.
Okay. How about Henry Davis, an innocent man who was beaten bloody by the police, then charged with vandalism for bleeding on their uniforms. How about any of the other cases listed here? When I talk about Ferguson, I don’t mean Michael Brown. I mean the Department of Justice investigation which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the police and justice system were systematically targeting, harassing, and abusing African-American residents. When I talk about Baltimore, I don’t mean Freddie Gray (although yeah, that case is pretty fucked up as well), I mean the Department of Justice investigation which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the police and justice system were systematically targeting African-American residents. When I talk about Chicago, I’m talking about the DoJ investigation. If it’s just a few bad apples, they’re pretty fuckin’ prolific.
I agree. Did you think something I posted was meant to suggest that Slager made the right choice?
I think it was the first post in a vein of “what should citizens do / not do when dealing with the police?” DSYoungEsq covered the same topic in post #40, and it was also discussed in posts #43, #45, #49, #52, #53, etc.
I may just be pessimistic, but I don’t put as much faith into the police, investigators, or the prosecutors working that hard to clear someone who killed one of their own.
This is also if she actually kills him, and is left as the only one with a story to tell. If a victim were to only wound him and escape, then it is her word against his as to how things went down, and I know who is pretty much always believed in those cases.
Fair enough, we’re each entitled to our opinions, and I readily admit that mine was formed with nothing but a cursory review of the information in a couple of news articles and Wikipedia. I didn’t see any suggestion of fellow officers colluding with or covering for Holtzclaw, which I consider a positive sign, and the Chief doesn’t seem to be backing him:
True. The hypothetical I was responding to was:
I assumed you meant fatally, but certainly there are survivable head wounds. I still think that the blood and shell casing(s), along with a rape kit and DNA evidence and inexplicable location, would provide be more than enough to exonerate most of his victims
Davis was stopped for speeding and arrested for driving while intoxicated. After the fight in the jail, he pled guilty to careless driving, speeding, non-moving violations, and two counts of Destruction of City Property.
He stood up in court and agreed that he was guilty, so I’m not sure I understand why you characterize him as “an innocent man.” Can you explain?
He did sue the officers for excessive force, but a federal jury in St Louis that heard his case found against him. He lost, in other words. And one of the officers, Michael White, counter-sued Davis for battery and the jury found Davis liable (although they awarded no monetary damages).
Can you explain what evidence you believe over the jury verdict?
No, he’s not. He’s pointing out a very important idea, one that btw the common law knew how to handle, that even when one person does something very bad, if someone else had a choice that, chosen differently, would have kept the bad thing from happening, that first choice is just as much a cause of the situation.
Unless you are asserting that, had he NOT fled, he still would have been shot 8 times in the back? Not much to support that.
You have a clear viewpoint with regard to who is at fault in all of these situations. You also use some pretty absolutist language with regard to things like the DoJ reports, etc. I think they cause you not to think quite clearly on this subject, and this is an example. What the officer did was wrong. But what the suspect did was wrong, ALSO, and had he not done it, he’d be alive today. Which came first?
We also do not know what transpired before the officer murdered him, and planted a weapon on him to make it look justified.
It is entirely possible that this officer tol his victim that he was going to beat or kill him, we don’t know, we only have the officer’s word that he didn’t threaten the guy, and I am more inclined to believe speculation that that officer’s word, as he has proved himself to be untrustworthy.
We’ve got quite a bit more than just “the officer’s word that he didn’t threaten the guy”. There’s a dashcam video, as well as a passenger in the vehicle, that give us a pretty good idea of what transpired before Walter Scott took off running.
ETA: It was a pretty mundane traffic stop up until Walter Scott took off running.
Should people be afraid of flying? Of course not, but they are. I mean, didn’t you guys read about that recent plane crash that killed over 100 people!?
For the OP: show us some statistics of total interactions between police and “people of color”, vs the number times harm comes to the person of color as a result. Then explain to us why those statistics justify as sense that they shouldn’t trust the police.
That is not to say I don’t think we have a problem in this country with police violence against minorities. I just don’t think it rises to the level that, in general, minorities should be distrustful of the police. In some circumstance, maybe. And for some demographics (young, male) more so than others. But just “generally”? Show me the data.
I don’t doubt that police mistreat blacks at higher rates than whites or Asians.
I am very surprised that 50% of black people have been mistreated by the police unless you have a very broad definition of mistreated.
I find it odd that 50% of blacks have been mistreated and only 15% of the remaining 50% have a family member that was mistreated. ISTM that the only way this happens is if 1/3 of blacks haven’t been mistreated or had a family member mistreated at the same time that half of all blacks have been mistreated. Unless there is a cultural or geographic segregation between these two groups, I don’t see a lot of obvious ways that this could happen unless some blacks are categorizing pretty much any interaction with the police as mistreatment.
Regardless of race, people should be weary of getting police involved. Once you get strangers (with a lot of power and possible indifference to you ) involved in your business, you invite trouble.
I’d be interested in seeing a geographic breakdown of the study’s participants. I’d be curious to know if there is a police force out there doing it right. I mean if Baltimore with its black mayor, mostly black city council and plurality black police officers can’t get it right then I’d be interested to know where they ARE getting it right.
IIandyiii wrote: "50% of black people report that they have personally been mistreated by police. Another 15% report that they have not, but a family member has.
So that’s 65% of black people who have either been mistreated, or have had a family member mistreated."
You can’t just add those percentages up because the 15% who are reporting mistreatment of a family member, that family member may be part of that initial 50%. Either way though, it’s still too high.
To get back to the OP’s point - I am not sure what “distrusting police” means, because it could be taken to mean actions that would make shootings **more **likely (i.e., running away from cops,) or make shootings **less **likely (i.e., “Here comes a cop. I’m going to put both hands on the steering wheel, not make any sudden moves, because I don’t want to give him any reason to shoot me senselessly. I don’t trust him.”)
Those are separate groups, as I understand the poll. 50 percent had personally been mistreated. Some of them probably also had family mistreated, but everyone is only slotted into one category. Another 15 hadn’t personally been mistreated, but had family who were.
You don’t need to mobilize a countrywide majority in order to combat a local police department. You mentioned Baltimore. Perhaps you could mobilize the rich urban liberals in that city that are so well known for their compassion. Lmk how that goes.
On second thought, the liberals are saturating local airwaves with high-profile complaints to local police because poor young children have taken to passing through their neighborhood and allegedly intimidating whites. Who would have thought Bernie Bumper Sticker Brigade wouldn’t be laying out the red carpet for the objects of their burden.
They’re not the same. LE use of deadly force have nothing to do with whether the suspect was engaged in a violent crime. Police use deadly force only when the person they are taking into custody presents a thread of death or serious injury to the officer or other citizens, regardless of the nature of the original offense. A person who robs a bank but immediately puts down their gun when they see the police arrive will likely not be shot (assuming the suspect doesn’t make any furtive movements). A person who shoplifts from a dollar store & then pulls a knife when confronted by an officer is likely to be shot justifiably.
And this speaks to the huge amount of mis-information that the public goes by in making judgements about LE. How many people think that cops have to read suspects their rights as soon as they put the silver bracelets on? Lots! Yet that is a false perception put out by Hollywood that infects people’s views of LE (Miranda Rights need to be read only when a cop wishes to question a subject about a crime that the officer suspects the person of committing. Thus, no questioning - no need to “mirandize.”
And what reason to allege abuse? Look at what people are awarded by cities that roll over the instant a suit is filed - regardless of merit. Most municipalities find it cheaper to settle than to fight in court. So while cities are handing out money to people w/o any trial, the public is left w/ the perception that the money is being awarded because the allegation is true. Municipalities settling lawsuits have a lot more to do with cost effectiveness than merit.