I will note that some police departments are thinking they can ditch the dash-cams with the BWC’s. This will result is the loss of evidence that can be crucial for determining reasonable cause for a stop. Both cams need to be used.
All right, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
(It’s hard to read context and tone from a text article. :o)
In the context of the trainer explaining to the police officers that they should be quick to kill to protect themselves, I am not sure that the reasonable listener would take that as hyperbole or an idle threat, in that he was threatening to kill someone to protect himself. I don’t know that such language is illegal, but it certainly should be frowned upon. Keep in mind that this is also a government paid employee threatening a reporter for doing his job. If I were that reporter, I would hope that I would be brave enough to report on the facts as they were, but I would have some fear for my safety in breaking the story. At the very least, I would see it as putting a chilling effect on first amendment protected actions.
If nothing else, should this reporter end up dead at the hands of this cop or another in a controversially justified shooting, would the threats be relevant to the prosecution? I can certainly see someone who looks up to this trainer deciding to carry out the will of the trainer, even if they were originally meant in jest.
For a final perspective, threats to other members are highly prohibited on this board, if someone were to make that sort of threat towards another poster, would you be behind them being banned, or would you consider it to be an overreaction to hyperbole?
Read your own article and compare it to the video.
- He followed the directions of the cop to take his hand out of the pants and was shot for it.
- No gun was seen because the victim was unarmed.
#1 is crucial because in these situations anything can be “suspicious” and if you have your hands in your pockets it’s a death warrant.
a) Suspect did not follow directions and kept his hands in his pockets. He may have had a gun.
OR
b) [del]The suspect followed directions[/del] The suspect was taking his hands out of his pocket. He may have had a gun.
ETA: When claiming self-defense, doesn’t the court/DA normally hold it against the civilian if they didn’t see an actual weapon?
Saint Cad - No, I can’t point out to you anything in that video that would justify the shooting without knowing more of the circumstances. That’s the problem with people viewing a short video out of context. But that’s a bit beside the point. The point is that BPC stated, as fact, something that was clearly not true and there is video evidence to prove it. This happens all the time. People make false allegations on social media and it spreads like wildfire. To the point where it is accepted as fact. The justified shooting of Keith Scott is a prime example. Are there “bad” police shootings? Absolutely. It does no good to hold up as examples shootings that were actually “good”. That leads to a loss of credibility. I, for one, will now look at anything BPC asserts as a fact as questionable.
But here’s what it boils down to - there’s always something suspicious to justify a shooting: hands in pocket (suspicious), hands out of pockets (suspicious), questioning police (not following directions which should not be a death sentence), having something in your hand like a cell phone. Apparently Justine Ruszyzyk was shot* because she approached the police car she called for without being warned to stop. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the justification for the shooting and not filing charges.
OK so anything “suspicious” justifies a police shooting. We also have evidence that corrupt police are shielded from the system and are not prosecuted or lose their jobs. Not only that, police are not punished even when they commit perjury and their testimony is later used to convict people. You cannot face facts and say that police are held to the same standards by the legal system that civvies are.
Now when you combine both of these realities you get cops getting away with murder.
*I understand that it is still under investigation and more information may come out.
I never brought up Keith Scott. You may be thinking of Walter Scott, who was murdered by Michael Slager last year.
I have had two employees and a few friends tell me (I haven’t been pulled over in over a decade.) that when they got pulled over in the last few years, one cop approached their window, while the other stood behind the car, with his gun pointed at the driver’s head. I find this trend to be disturbing, all it takes is one twitch, and the officer now needs to lie on his report.
I have no info, as there was no body cam footage, but I would WAG that the partner had his gun out and pointed at the woman as essentially standard operating procedure. Then he either twitched or had an itch, and boom, gun goes off. He may not have even meant to pull the trigger.
I have never in my life gone to a city council meeting, but I would be at the very next one loudly calling this STATE TERRORISM and demanding that the city government order our town’s police to stop this immediately. I’d also be calling the local newspapers and media, making as much noise about it as possible, and purchasing a dual-dash cam.
“I have never in my life been arrested or charged with any crime. Why am I being stopped and a gun pointed at the back of my head? This is not a reasonable policy or practice and it is not for anyone’s safety. It is for intimidation and terror.”
What area is this? That is incredibly disturbing.
That’s what I told them. One of my friends actually defended the practice, saying that they were just looking out for their safety. This took me a bit aback. They had a gun pointed at your head, and you’re okay with that?
Pretty sure that the one that pulled over my employee (who was in tears when she got to work) was a statey, so local council meetings wouldn’t help with that.
I know that I would have some issues with the practice myself. I’m not a big fan of people pointing guns at my head.
I do agree with the dash cam, I plan on doing some research to get one at some point (I’m a white, middle aged male with over a decade of perfect driving, so I’m not actually all that concerned for myself, so no hurry), but it is something that everyone should be looking into these days. That way, it’s not your word against a cop’s.
Not far north of you. One incident was in South Lebanon (that is the one where the driver was defending the cop’s actions), and the other that I know where it took place was on 129 (hamilton I-75 connector). The others were anecdotes that I didn’t get as much detail on, but probably in the general hamilton/middletown ish area.
I’d support the ban decision. But I also don’t think there’s a useful analog between the private SDMB and the government’s penal law. The SDMB has no requirement to analyze First Amendment interaction with their moderation decisions; they can ban based on simply desiring to avoid even the hint of violent imagery. That’s not a position the government can take.
Also please note I haven’t said I support the result here. I’m explaining the state of the law, not endorsing it.
I have to think this is a bit of storytelling and someone letting hysteria getting the best of them.
2nd officer behind the car, yes I believe that.
2nd officer gun drawn and holding at a shooting angle to the drivers head. That I do not believe occurs with the average traffic stop.
Now if the plates came up as stolen, or there is some other suspicious reason then yes I could believe it. However, I highly doubt this is normal activity for common traffic stop
One was driving a beater car, this is the one who was not hysterical in any way shape or form, in fact, he thought it was a good idea for the cop to be threatening his life, and the other had recently bought her car from a car dealer, I would have to talk to her again to get the details, but there was something odd about the dealer plate and she was being accused of having stolen the car.
I’d have to speed past one of the speed traps on my way home some time to get first hand info. I can afford the ticket, that is, if I don’t get my head blown off.
Hopefully this is truly not the norm.
I never said that you did bring it up. I did. As an example of a baseless claim of police shooting an unarmed man. Unless you believe that the cops planted the gun and ankle holster and fabricated witness statements, including the previous report by Scott’s wife that he had a gun, this was a justified shooting. Yet, Charlotte PD had to deal with “civil unrest” because the masses bought into the swill on social media. Why let facts get in the way of the narrative? BTW, I agree that Slager murdered Scott.
You know I’was reflecting on this and I think you unintentionally proved my point. ISTM that the reason for a cop shooting a suspect should be so obvious that a snippet of video should be enough: he reaches behind his back or pull an object out of his pocket. If you say you need a context to a video then the cop is probably in the wrong and you are grasping at straws defending him.
You absolutely need context. This is what is known as “the totality of circumstances” and is well settled in the law. On top of that, what may be obvious to a trained officer may not be obvious to someone without the training. Relying on snippets and sound bytes without explanation is a recipe for disaster. That’s why we have actual trials, not trial by social or “regular” media. I’m not defending this particular video since, as I type, I haven’t looked at it. It doesn’t matter. All police uses of force should be judged in light of the totality of circumstances. To do otherwise is downright foolish.