Author Topic: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences  (Read 25102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
Normal self-defense rules (should) apply, regardless of who the defender is.

Note that there's a difference between being scared, being scared for your life, and reasonably believing you're in danger of death or serious injury, and that (if I understand things correctly) it's only that last one that's a valid legal justification for killing someone.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
This is both hilarious and really sad...

Yes, but I'm not sure if it's for the reason the author intended. If you simply read the original without the in-line responses, it's pretty clear. I can see it even with the in-line responses.   The second author is twisting the intent and the meaning of the original article using the emotional response that people have towards the victimization of the innocent in domestic abuse cases.   It's really not that hard to see through this.

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
This is both hilarious and really sad...

Yes, but I'm not sure if it's for the reason the author intended. If you simply read the original without the in-line responses, it's pretty clear. I can see it even with the in-line responses.   The second author is twisting the intent and the meaning of the original article using the emotional response that people have towards the victimization of the innocent in domestic abuse cases.   It's really not that hard to see through this.

Yeah, I started reading that yesterday but got interrupted and sidetracked, but I was getting the same impression then. Now I've had time to sit down and read it right through properly, it's a pathetic and unwarranted character assassination, twisting everything he says in the worst possible way they can think of. It just gets more pathetic the further along you go.

Quote
I don't know anything about Mr. Dutta's personal life and am not accusing him of anything

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote
**** you, Sunil Dutta.

No. **** you, Edie Beale.

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
The original article presents the very same implications.
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
The original article presents the very same implications.
I want to be clear, are you saying you think Edie Beale is right?

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
I think Jordan Sargent is right, and Edie Beale presented his (admitedly) hyperbolic view on same text.

Or do you really think

Quote
If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.

is really a better excuse than "If you don't have anything to hide..."?
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
Oh right, this:

http://gawker.com/cop-pens-touching-op-ed-do-everything-i-say-and-i-wont-1623985263

That is a lot more reasonable.

Of course there are things that I can take issue with in Dutta's piece, but I don't think he's some sort of abuser.

But the message I took from it is it's safer for you to get through the incident with the bad cop by complying with what they want, and then go and complain or sue them or whatever. And maybe that it would help your case.

Whatever you think about the justice system, I'd wager you'll have a better chance with going through that than going through the abusive cop.

Might as well post his article too, so people can just read it without it being all chopped up and picked over by other people and form their own opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
I know sometimes (that I've seen), the editor will change the article title. If they don't like your opinion, then you can get interesting results. This might be one of those. Because the rest of the article  seems pretty reasonable.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
What, the outright execution of a suspected shoplifter (and for all we know, the cop that did the shooting didn't know about the shoplifting at the time he did the shooting) is justifiable now?

But the evidence (witness statements, frontal gun wounds, orbital fracture) doesnt seem to corroborate that scenario at all. Killing of someone who assaults the police is indeed justified.

I want to come back to this because it's dead ****ing wrong.  The duty of the police is to attempt to arrest a suspect alive to be brought in for a criminal case in a court of law.  If Michael Brown was not at that very moment threatening Officer Wilson's life in an immediate sense, Officer Wilson should not have taken the shot (or multiple shots, as it turns out).

That right there is the problem with police militarization.  It makes it easy to resort to lethal force when non-lethal force should be employed. 

The maximum sentence for assault in the first degree (knowingly attempting to kill someone) in Missouri is 15 years.  15 years is not death.

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
Guess the officer should have just trusted the good will of the fellow BREAKING HIS FACE??

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
There's a huge difference between "trusting the goodwill" and not shooting someone eight times from 30 feet away.

You know, just a little bit.

  

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
There isn't really much legitimate information to go on. Eyewitnesses contradict themselves and the police, there's a crapton of bias (**** the police attitudes, racism [this goes both ways])

If an officer is injured in an altercation of which involves someone possibly charging at him (see the following ["This one here looks like his head was bent downward," Dr. Michael Baden, who conducted the autopsy on behalf of Brown's family, told the New York Times. "It can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer."]) he is in no condition to take down someone non-lethally thus making an unarmed man far more of a threat than it would be usually

How far away was Brown from the officer? We know he died 35 feet from the car, but I can't seem to find just where the officer was in relation to Brown (you know, the important number) and it was said he exited the vehicle and pursued Brown (how is in dispute ie was he chasing, walking)

EDIT:

Just some more thoughts on it - Having been injured, Wilson could have more than likely had a rattled sense of reality. Perceived threats are subject to the person. It's easy for outsiders to go "Well obviously he wasn't a threat" but not so easy for someone running on adrenaline and an injury
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 10:30:39 pm by deathfun »
"No"

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
Not to mention a huge spike of fear from having almost lost his weapon to the guy that just tried to cave in his face.

Adsun8ng,of course, that that actually happened.

I just don't see how people can be like 'unless you are in mortal danger, you can't respond with deadly force'

News flash :by the time you are certain of mortal danger,  you will be 1)dead, 2) dying or 3) at the complete mercy of someone holding you in a position to instantly kill you if you don't obey them.

Common sense, people.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
I want to come back to this because it's dead ****ing wrong.  The duty of the police is to attempt to arrest a suspect alive to be brought in for a criminal case in a court of law.  If Michael Brown was not at that very moment threatening Officer Wilson's life in an immediate sense, Officer Wilson should not have taken the shot (or multiple shots, as it turns out).

Look, while the police should try to minimise casualties, when the suspect throws a punch that causes you an orbital fracture and tries to take your gun, you are justified to kill him. Reasonable self defense. If thats what happened.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 01:52:38 am by 666maslo666 »
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
@maslo: It's not "self defense" if the guy is running away. The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.

@jr2: Deadly force is supposed to be a last resort. Things like "running away", "talking to the person", and "assessing the situation to make sure you don't kill someone who is actually a non-threat" are supposed to come first.

Can someone who remembers the URL for it please post a link to that web"comic" that thoroughly explains self-defense law?

 

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
Quote
The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.

If the guy turns around and moves towards you, yes it does change that
*However* there is no solid evidence which states that this happened (nor is there solid evidence saying it didn't)
"No"

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
@maslo: It's not "self defense" if the guy is running away. The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.

Yeah, if thats what happened then it is not self defense. However if he was running towards the officer at the end, then it was.

One thing is certain, police should wear cameras when on duty, it protects both the public from police brutality and the police from false brutality accusations. A win-win situation.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
It'd keep people honest to say the least
"No"

 

Offline jr2

  • The Mail Man
  • 212
  • It's prounounced jayartoo 0x6A7232
    • Steam
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
http://m.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/open-letter-captain-ronald-s-j

An Open Letter to Captain Ronald S. Johnson

Chief Ed Delmore |

I have to call you out.

I don’t care what the media says. I expect them to get it wrong and they often do. But I expect you as a veteran law enforcement commander—talking about law enforcement—to get it right.

Unfortunately, you blew it. After days of rioting and looting, last Thursday you were given command of all law enforcement operations in Ferguson by Governor Jay Nixon. St. Louis County PD was out, you were in. You played to the cameras, walked with the protestors and promised a kinder, gentler response. You were a media darling. And Thursday night things were better, much better.

But Friday, under significant pressure to do so, the Ferguson Police released the name of the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown. At the same time the Ferguson Police Chief released a video showing Brown committing a strong-arm robbery just 10 minutes before he was confronted by Officer Darren Wilson.

Many don’t like the timing of the release of the video. I don’t like that timing either. It should have been released sooner. It should have been released the moment FPD realized that Brown was the suspect.

Captain Johnson, your words during the day on Friday helped to fuel the anger that was still churning just below the surface. St. Louis County Police were told to remain uninvolved and that night the rioting and looting began again. For much too long it went on mostly unchecked. Retired St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch tweeted that your “hug-a-looter” policy had failed.

Boy did it.

And your words contributed to what happened Friday night and on into the wee hours of Saturday. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, you said the following regarding the release of the video: “There was no need to release it,” Johnson said calling the reported theft and the killing entirely different events.

Well Captain, this veteran police officer feels the need to respond. What you said is, in common police vernacular—bull****. The fact that Brown knew he had just committed a robbery before he was stopped by Officer Wilson speaks to Brown’s mindset. And Captain, the mindset of a person being stopped by a police officer means everything, and you know it.

Let’s consider a few examples:
On February 15, 1978 Pensacola Police Officer David Lee conducted a vehicle check. He didn’t know what the sole occupant of the vehicle had recently done, but the occupant did. Who was he? Serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy attempted to disarm Lee. Lee was able to retain his firearm and eventually took Bundy into custody.

On April 19, 1995 Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hangar stopped a vehicle for minor traffic violations. He didn’t know that 90 minutes earlier the traffic violator, Timothy McVeigh, killed 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building. But McVeigh sure knew it, didn’t he? Fortunately, given his training and experience Hangar was able to take McVeigh into custody for carrying a concealed firearm. It was days later before it was determined that McVeigh was responsible for the bombing.

On May 31, 2003 then-rookie North Carolina police officer, Jeff Postell, arrested a man digging in a trash bin on a grocery store parking lot—an infraction that would rise to about the level of jaywalking. Postell didn’t know that he had just captured Eric Rudolph, the man whom years earlier had killed and injured numerous people with bombs and was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.

So now, let’s consider Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson’s stop of Michael Brown. Apparently Wilson didn’t know that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery. But Brown did! And that Captain, is huge.

Allegedly, Brown pushed Wilson and attempted to take Wilson’s gun. We’re also being told that Officer Wilson has facial injuries suffered during the attempt by Brown to disarm him. Let’s assume for a moment those alleged acts by Brown actually occurred. Would Brown have responded violently to an officer confronting him about jaywalking? Maybe, but probably not.

Is it more likely that he would attack an officer believing that he was about to be taken into custody for a felony strong-arm robbery? Absolutely.

Officer Wilson survived the encounter with Brown as did Lee, Hangar, and Postell. Michael Brown didn’t survive and it’s too soon to say if Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force was justified and legal. You and I both know that not all officers survive such confrontations. Officers die in incidents like this Captain Johnson, including a couple that I remember from your own organization:

On April 15, 1985 Missouri Trooper Jimmie Linegar was shot and killed by a white supremacist he and his partner stopped at a checkpoint; neither Trooper Linegar nor his partner were aware that the man they had stopped had just been indicted by a federal grand jury for involvement in a neo-Nazi group accused of murder. The suspect immediately exited the vehicle and opened fire on him with an automatic weapon.

Just a month before, Missouri Trooper James M. Froemsdorf was shot and killed—with his own gun—after making a traffic stop. When the Trooper made that stop he didn’t know that the driver was wanted on four warrants out of Texas—But again the suspect knew it.

So Captain Johnson, I guess the mindset and recently committed crimes of the suspects that murdered those Missouri Troopers didn’t mean anything. The stops by the Troopers, as you have said, are entirely different events right?

Bull****.

 

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
Re: Police militarization in the US, and its consequences
I don't get what the point of that "open letter" is.

What prescriptive value does "the events turned out to be related, after the fact" have? None.