Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:39 am UTC

Did you watch the same video as I did? The driver was crashed, his car very obviously not going anywhere anymore, when they just walked up to him and shot him.

It's straight up murder.

Yes, the guy could have killed someone during that chase, what he was doing was clearly very criminal, and if they had shot him during the chase it might have been justified. But that is not what happened here.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Sytri
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:00 am UTC
Location: Reading, UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sytri » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:45 am UTC

Sorry, I'm at work so can't see the video.

My point still stands though. Yes, deadly force may be justified during the most extreme part of the chase; when he was ramming police cars and endangering others. But he was cornered when they shot him.

Edit - Remembered I own a smartphone:

Yep, straight up uncalled for shooting. To me it seems the officers got frustrated that he just wasn't quitting and letting them take him. Yes he rammed them but their cars withstood it, none of them were disabled. The more the chase went on the more damage his truck took and at the end, they could've stopped him by forcing their cars into the truck and wedging him against a tree.
Apathy will kill us all. Or not. Whatever.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby JBJ » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Did you watch the same video as I did? The driver was crashed, his car very obviously not going anywhere anymore, when they just walked up to him and shot him.

I didn't see anything like that in the video. At 3:51 he rams the car with the dashcam again, and the shots immediately follow (within 3 seconds). Let me state again, immediately after he rammed the police car again is when they opened fire. I don't think that less than 3 seconds is enough time to determine that his truck was obviously not going anywhere after that last crash, especially considering the engine was still running and the truck was still in gear. The truck even moves slightly after the shots were fired.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

Yeah, when shots start being fired (at the ~4 minute mark) he had just rammed the vehicle again; it's not clear at all that his vehicle was disabled. Sure, it was pretty banged up, but trucks can take a beating. More of a beating than a cruiser can take. After all, we don't know what level of damage had been done to the cruiser that the video was being shot from; we saw a lot of flying parts but that's it. I'm sure that if I was in a police cruiser and a perp started ramming the side of my car hard enough to spray me with glass, I'd be reasonable in feeling my life was threatened.

Now, up to that point, there was no justification to shoot him. Backing into the police car, driving at high speeds, going the wrong way on one-way streets -- all these are grossly negligent and show a reckless disregard for life. Even so, none of these justify lethal force in self-defense. Close range t-bone ramming does.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:44 pm UTC

ech. We did not see a seventeen year old child murdered.
We saw a white two wheel drive pick-up truck tearing up soft sod.
We saw that white two wheel drive pick-up back into a grove of oak.

I saw two Police cars. Where was the third?
What did we see? Why were we allowed to see it?

Google Glass? From the eyes of the shooter, if it was not staged.
Did it look staged to you? Not to me. (what do i know?)

The driver was driving backwards. That is hard. People that don't know how to drive go in circles. Often, not always.
Some people seem to have Talent. They get in a car and it is like a jacket that fits well.

The driver had a trailer when this whole thing began.
He messed up the trailer. Poor child.

What was he thinking? "Danm it, Dad! Too Fast Over The Speed Bump!? I'll Show You, TOO FAST!"
It is not funny. We don't know that young man. If the News story is true, we never will.

Did he think, "My Dad is going to kill me."
His Dad would not have killed him. If the story is true, I like to think his Dad would have been angry at him.
That man, if real, is only Human. What a pain in the ass that young man must have been that day.

Maybe, he was growing up and it was time for Dad to get on up off his back a little.
Who knows? I don't know those people.

People snap. The trailer. Did you see the trailer?
Why did he back into the Police car?

That seemed unprovoked. Was he setting the hitch?
Did that young man live with his Father? work with his Father? love his Father? hate is Father on one strange day in November?

What a tragic story. Of course, I could be wrong. Was there really a shooting?
This is the internet. It could be Anything! (ok. It couldn't be a CuttleFish.)
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:46 am UTC

I watched, and I have to side with the police (at least pending more evidence). At this point, it looks like sufficient cause for lethal force to me.

(I don't know what exactly was going on in that melon on the kid's shoulders, but I'm pretty sure it was not just panic. Vengeance maybe? Utterly volcanic rage? Malicious spite? Evil desire to rain wanton destruction? Drug induced hallucinatory haze? Just plain lip-flapping, finger-twirling insanity? If you were there, could you reasonably have thought you were in danger? Could you have thought other citizens were in danger? I sure as h*** could have thought both.)

That's part of the problem, though, with these media accounts. They always say something like, "The police said [blah blah blah] and some citizens said [blah blah blah]."

...and that's it: The views of two utterly partisan groups. The reader is left to guess whether there is impartial reason to think the police were justified or not.

So on the one hand, there's the Deming butt-search case, where it seems clear to me that there's no possible justification no matter what the police claim. Then there's this, where loud and broadly disseminated claims of excessive force are probably unwarranted.

I wind up shrugging off a lot of supposed excessive force cases because the reports from utterly and obviously partisan viewpoints are simply insufficient to make a clear judgement.
In all fairness...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:33 am UTC

Really?
Public Rape is better than Death?
No. Death is better than Public Rape?

What is the metric?
I disagree with you.
Of course, no one cares what I think.

That Deming Case was an attention getter.
Like the Attempted Public Indecency Case.
Every ear in the room perks up and swings around.

This Thread scares me. I keep looking through my fingers, anyway.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:30 pm UTC

Killing someone who is actively trying to injure or kill others and there's no reasonably effective less-lethal alternative makes sense. Giving someone multiple enemas and anal probes because they walked funny and a dog looked at them suspiciously doesn't make sense.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Killing someone who is actively trying to injure or kill others and there's no reasonably effective less-lethal alternative makes sense. Giving someone multiple enemas and anal probes because they walked funny and a dog looked at them suspiciously doesn't make sense.


The enema guy lived.
The enema guy may be ok, now.
If it really happened.
Spoiler:
The way you wrote that sentence is funny, Honey.


The story of the Teenager is more Tragic in some ways.
If there were really shots fired;
Why do we not see the Dash Cam of the Police car that was at about a ninety degree angle to the camera we were observing from?

Three Cars; One Camera?
Why? Cheep?

We are internet Idiots arguing about a film? As if it were Real? Why?!
What is the matter with us? Not you. You and Me. Us.

Maybe; It is, just, me.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:15 pm UTC

Is it better or worse that I didn't actually watch the video in question?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

The way the whole thing was reported is kind of a big issue.

On the one hand, "My kid took my truck without permission so I called the cops on him and they shot him" sounds really really awful.

On the other hand, "When police attempted to stop and question a teenager who had taken his father's truck without permission, he led them on a dangerous, high-speed chase through an urban area, causing multiple accidents and tragically resulting in his death" makes more sense.

The two bullets that killed him are no more terrible than his steering wheel would have been if he'd hit another car head-on during that whole thing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:32 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Killing someone who is actively trying to injure or kill others and there's no reasonably effective less-lethal alternative makes sense. Giving someone multiple enemas and anal probes because they walked funny and a dog looked at them suspiciously doesn't make sense.


Yeah, that one ended up being more troubling, even because nobody died, specifically because it was so blatantly unnecessary.

And of course, billing him for it just made the whole thing utterly insane.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:41 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:The way the whole thing was reported is kind of a big issue.

On the one hand, "My kid took my truck without permission so I called the cops on him and they shot him" sounds really really awful.

On the other hand, "When police attempted to stop and question a teenager who had taken his father's truck without permission, he led them on a dangerous, high-speed chase through an urban area, causing multiple accidents and tragically resulting in his death" makes more sense.

The two bullets that killed him are no more terrible than his steering wheel would have been if he'd hit another cat head-on during that whole thing.

Not to be argumentative; But....
The clip did not show a young man gunned down while being a danger.
The clip showed a two wheel drive vehicle in soft sod.
That same vehicle was in trees.

That young man was no longer much of a danger to anyone.
Shooting his tires would have been a heroic and horrible thing to do.

If that clip did show the last few moments of a young man's life, we have nothing to be proud of.

Families with teens should be able to turn to the Police for help.
Teens are horrible when they are not being delightful.

This is not the first case of a teen being shot by Police after a parent has asked the Police for help.
Shooting the teen is Not Helping!

That kid was causing trouble. He had not committed a capital crime.
Well...The Police decided he did.

I disagree.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:33 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, that one ended up being more troubling, even because nobody died, specifically because it was so blatantly unnecessary.

And of course, billing him for it just made the whole thing utterly insane.


Actually, I thought about that, and I ran into a quandary. My first thought was, I simply wouldn't give permission for anything: If you cop jerks have the authority, use it.

But all medical procedures have risks. Suppose something happens to me as a result of this insanity. I'd want them to call my next of kin, right? I wouldn't give permission for the initial procedures, but if I wind up with a ruptured bowel or something, I or someone else would need to give permission for the surgery to fix it. I don't see the cops doing that: "Gee," big happy smile, "We only have authority to rupture it, not to fix it. Too bad for the perp."

So, on consideration, I see no option but to cooperate with the registration process in a case like this, even though I refuse permission for them to perform the procedures "authorized" by the warrant.

I work for a hospital. The registered patient or the patient's legal guardian is always ultimate payer, always the one with ultimate responsibility for the debt. The hospital would not, I think, even be able to list the city as a payer; the cops couldn't authorize that (has to be done by the board/commission/etc.). So, unfair as it seems, I think the bill would have to go to the patient.

The city would/will have to pay it in any case. But there are a lot of situations under law where a person can be held directly responsible for someone else's damages/bill, just as in this case. For example, consider that you lend your car to Joe and Joe smashes it into Bob's house: You are responsible for the damage to Bob's house, not Joe; not directly. Of course, Joe owes you restitution--that's law--but Bob can't go after Joe directly, Bob has to go after you: Your car, your insurance. (Which is why you don't lend your car, to a Joe, right?) Your recourse is to get the money from Joe, if you can, by lawsuit if necessary.

(Which brings us back to the other story: Y'all remember that the truck was the dad's, right? So in addition to his son taking the truck without permission, going crazy and winding up dead, I think the dad is responsible for all the damage done by the kid using that truck. If that doesn't make you face-palm, I don't know what will...)

As was said in Oliver Twist, "Sometimes the law is an ass."
In all fairness...

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Woopate » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:24 am UTC

I agree and disagree with you, Addams. It is a shame the young man died. It is impossible to make a judgment from the video we see. It is compelling evidence that the shootings were justified, but I dont think if I were a juror it would be sufficient to charge anyone. We would have a better idea of what happened if we could see the other videos.

BUT! I doubt the police would ever release footage of a man dying. Given the timing of the situation, there isnt a way to show clearly what happened without clearly showing a man being shot to death. Nor do I really think the media, if given sensitive footage like that, would handle the situation with appropriate delicacy. I think what we got is probably best, and a court should get the rest of the footage to make a clear assessment.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:50 am UTC

Coyne wrote:For example, consider that you lend your cat to Joe and Joe smashes it into Bob's house: You are responsible for the damage to Bob's house, not Joe; not directly. Of course, Joe owes you restitution--that's law--but Bob can't go after Joe directly, Bob has to go after you: Your cat, your insurance. (Which is why you don't lend your cat, to a Joe, right?) Your recourse is to get the money from Joe, if you can, by lawsuit if necessary.

You are wrong. The driver is responsible for damages caused, not the car owner.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:12 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:The two bullets that killed him are no more terrible than his steering wheel would have been if he'd hit another cat head-on during that whole thing.

Kinda? But since he didn't hurt or kill anyone, and since the police are not the judge, jury and executioner, equating the two is distracting from the real issue. The question is what happened off camera. Was he trapped there? Was his truck still functioning? Was there a third police car that could have stopped his escape (from which I assume he was shot)? The last crash wasn't clear from the video as to what happened. I think it's hard to come to a conclusion either way from the video, but talking about how dangerous he had been as justification for shooting him is pretty tenuous without knowing what was happening to the right of the frame.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:39 pm UTC

addams wrote:The clip did not show a young man gunned down while being a danger.
The clip showed a two wheel drive vehicle in soft sod.
That same vehicle was in trees.

That young man was no longer much of a danger to anyone.
Shooting his tires would have been a heroic and horrible thing to do.

How do you know the truck was FWD?

The shooting happened just moments after the truck rammed the side of the police car hard enough to fling chunks of car all the way across the hood and windshield. I'm as eager to call out police misbehavior as anybody, but if someone rams the side of your car that hard, I think it's reasonable to believe you're in serious danger.

bentheimmigrant wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:The two bullets that killed him are no more terrible than his steering wheel would have been if he'd hit another cat head-on during that whole thing.

Kinda? But since he didn't hurt or kill anyone, and since the police are not the judge, jury and executioner, equating the two is distracting from the real issue.

Of course the police should not decide for themselves whether someone deserves to die.

People seem to think that "he got himself killed" equates to "he committed crimes worthy of capital punishment", but that's not the case at all. If I load a gun with blanks and run into a police station and commit suicide by cop, I haven't committed a capital crime (after all, not even attempted murder is a capital crime) but I most certainly got myself killed. I could have reasonably foreseen that my actions had a high probability of leading to my death. So my blood is on my own hands (metaphorically) even though I did absolutely nothing which would have even come close to warranting the death penalty.

"He got himself killed" is not the same as "he deserved to die."

bentheimmigrant wrote:The question is what happened off camera. Was he trapped there? Was his truck still functioning?

His truck was functioning enough to ram the police car really really hard just seconds before.

bentheimmigrant wrote:Was there a third police cat that could have stopped his escape (from which I assume he was shot)?

He was shot by the police officer who had been driving the car that the video was being taken from. The officer got out of the car immediately after it was rammed and pulled his weapon. We don't know whether the truck started to accelerate toward him before he fired or not, but it seems reasonable that he believed he was in danger.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Coyne wrote:For example, consider that you lend your cat to Joe and Joe smashes it into Bob's house: You are responsible for the damage to Bob's house, not Joe; not directly. Of course, Joe owes you restitution--that's law--but Bob can't go after Joe directly, Bob has to go after you: Your cat, your insurance. (Which is why you don't lend your cat, to a Joe, right?) Your recourse is to get the money from Joe, if you can, by lawsuit if necessary.

You are wrong. The driver is responsible for damages caused, not the cat owner.


You are ultimately correct. But the direct financial responsibility is yours, not the driver's, since it's your car. So Bob gets his damages from you, the owner of the car (or your insurance). Even though you aren't responsible by action, you are financially responsible. You're the one who has to go after the driver, and if he has anything to get, you will win since he bears ultimate responsibility.

Some comments about insurance (when reading these, remember that the insurance company is your agent; it pays when you are responsible; so when theses say your insurance pays, that means you are financially responsible under the law):

Spoiler:
From State Farm:

Typically, even if the person driving your car has his or her own insurance, your insurance will likely pay damages first if there’s an accident. The driver’s insurance may cover some of the personal injury or medical expenses, and it may supplement your plan if the accident maxes out your coverage.


From Esurance:

If you give any non-excluded driver (that is, someone you don't explicitly exclude on your policy) permission to take the wheel, your car insurance takes primary coverage status, which means that your car insurance would be primarily liable if something happens. The permitted driver's own insurance would serve as secondary coverage. So, for instance, if you loan your car to your best friend Drew and he causes an accident, you'll have to file a claim with your insurer, pay the deductible, and possibly expect a rate increase.


From a discussion on About.com:

By allowing another driver to operate your vehicle, you are taking responsibility for the driver.


I was wrong in my comment about the truck, though: If someone takes your car without permission, you aren't responsible.
In all fairness...

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby skeptical scientist » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:02 am UTC

Coyne wrote:I work for a hospital. The registered patient or the patient's legal guardian is always ultimate payer, always the one with ultimate responsibility for the debt. The hospital would not, I think, even be able to list the city as a payer; the cops couldn't authorize that (has to be done by the board/commission/etc.). So, unfair as it seems, I think the bill would have to go to the patient.

Have you dealt with any cases where the patient (or legal guardian) specifically refused to consent to a procedure and it was performed anyways? (I'm not talking about cases where consent was assumed because the patient was unconscious.)
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:53 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:The two bullets that killed him are no more terrible than his steering wheel would have been if he'd hit another cat head-on during that whole thing.

Kinda? But since he didn't hurt or kill anyone, and since the police are not the judge, jury and executioner, equating the two is distracting from the real issue.

Of course the police should not decide for themselves whether someone deserves to die.

People seem to think that "he got himself killed" equates to "he committed crimes worthy of capital punishment", but that's not the case at all. If I load a gun with blanks and run into a police station and commit suicide by cop, I haven't committed a capital crime (after all, not even attempted murder is a capital crime) but I most certainly got myself killed. I could have reasonably foreseen that my actions had a high probability of leading to my death. So my blood is on my own hands (metaphorically) even though I did absolutely nothing which would have even come close to warranting the death penalty.

"He got himself killed" is not the same as "he deserved to die."

bentheimmigrant wrote:The question is what happened off camera. Was he trapped there? Was his truck still functioning?

His truck was functioning enough to ram the police cat really really hard just seconds before.

bentheimmigrant wrote:Was there a third police cat that could have stopped his escape (from which I assume he was shot)?

He was shot by the police officer who had been driving the cat that the video was being taken from. The officer got out of the cat immediately after it was rammed and pulled his weapon. We don't know whether the truck started to accelerate toward him before he fired or not, but it seems reasonable that he believed he was in danger.

Now there are three things I'd like to say, but it's kinda confusing since I've changed my mind about the justification, but not the concepts, if that makes any sense...

As for the first part, there is a difference between past and present actions. It seems to me that once off the street and away from people, the justification is mostly gone, in that respect. Which means "he got himself killed" contains within it the implicit message that the police could kill him for past actions, not the present danger he posed.

Not really convinced he rammed them "really really hard"... The cop car barely moved when it got hit. Looks more like he spun out and whipped into them, hence why he ended up facing the exact opposite direction than he would have rammed them from. But again, this is the problem of trying to piece together what happens off screen.

Now, watching it again, I think you're right about who shot - and I think I've come to agree that the shooting is justified. I think it sounds like two people (driver and partner) exit the car, before the final impact... Which means there was a policeman who was almost hit when he was outside the car (and could explain why the truck was going the direction it was). In that case, the passenger was just a victim of attempted murder.

... heh. Cop cat.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby oxoiron » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:40 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
Coyne wrote:I work for a hospital. The registered patient or the patient's legal guardian is always ultimate payer, always the one with ultimate responsibility for the debt. The hospital would not, I think, even be able to list the city as a payer; the cops couldn't authorize that (has to be done by the board/commission/etc.). So, unfair as it seems, I think the bill would have to go to the patient.
Have you dealt with any cases where the patient (or legal guardian) specifically refused to consent to a procedure and it was performed anyways? (I'm not talking about cases where consent was assumed because the patient was unconscious.)
In Minnesota, if you are treated for mental health issues against your wishes (e.g. 72-hour hold), then you cannot be billed. The government entity which started the process is financially responsible. I assume this would hold true for any medical procedure ordered by an officer of the state.

It is also possible that the state is considered the legal guardian under these circumstances, so they would naturally incur any expenses anyway.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:56 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
Diadem wrote:You are wrong. The driver is responsible for damages caused, not the cat owner.

You are ultimately correct. But the direct financial responsibility is yours, not the driver's, since it's your cat. So Bob gets his damages from you, the owner of the cat (or your insurance). Even though you aren't responsible by action, you are financially responsible. You're the one who has to go after the driver, and if he has anything to get, you will win since he bears ultimate responsibility.

No.

Answer spoilered for being somewhat off-topic

Spoiler:
You are confusing two separate concepts. Yes, your insurance pays damages caused with your car, but that doesn't make you responsible. Because it's not really your insurance, it's your car's insurance. People are not insured, cars are1. So if you borrow someone your car, that car is generally still insured. So yes, your insurance will pay if there is an accident, but that doesn't mean you are responsible. And if the driver causes damage that isn't insured (like in your example where he caused deliberate damage) then that is the driver's responsibility and only his responsibility. Same if the car was stolen.

1There are countries where this is different by the way. In the UK car insurance is personal (disclaimer: I'm not an expert on UK law. This is what I know from my visits there). If you borrow someone your car, that person will not be insured (and thus not legally allowed to drive!) unless they also have a personal insurance. In this case, responsibility falls even more clearly to the driver, not the car owner. At first glance such a system makes sense, but in reality it doesn't work as well I think, because it's so very inflexible. If you get drunk, you can't let a friend drive you home for example. And you can't hire a car without first getting insured. Though I would guess insurance companies offer easy to get temporary insurance policies for precisely those situations.

Some comments about insurance (when reading these, remember that the insurance company is your agent; it pays when you are responsible; so when theses say your insurance pays, that means you are financially responsible under the law):

Like I said, nope. Your insurance is your car's agent. If you own a car, it's your insurance in the sense that you are the one responsible for making sure it's there. But you are not the one who is insured.

Finally: Why do I keep wanting to type 'ensurance' instead of 'insurance'?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
KrO2
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:35 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrO2 » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:16 am UTC


User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:18 am UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
Coyne wrote:I work for a hospital. The registered patient or the patient's legal guardian is always ultimate payer, always the one with ultimate responsibility for the debt. The hospital would not, I think, even be able to list the city as a payer; the cops couldn't authorize that (has to be done by the board/commission/etc.). So, unfair as it seems, I think the bill would have to go to the patient.

Have you dealt with any cases where the patient (or legal guardian) specifically refused to consent to a procedure and it was performed anyways? (I'm not talking about cases where consent was assumed because the patient was unconscious.)


Short answer: No, I've not dealt with any such case in person. I'm a programmer, aware of some of these issues from required employee training discussing proper handling of ethical concerns and from requirements of our patient registration and billing applications. Especially the former: Even though I'm not medical personnel, I still get yearly training on how to identify situations requiring an ethical consult.

I am trained that the patient's wishes are not always followed; cannot always be followed. Possibly the most common example that comes to my mind: The child doesn't want to have the treatment the parents approved. Now, in case you're thinking of dismissing that example as trivial, no, that is not a given: If the child is the patient, the child has a right to be heard and their wishes may prevail in some cases, even above their parent's wishes.

Legal warrants and authority can sometimes have priority: Do you think the person being executed gives permission for administration of those drugs? Do you think those people on Guantanamo want those feeding tubes shoved in their veins?

Every day, there are cases where patient wishes are not followed; as determined by tangled set of ethical rules so complex as to boggle anyone. There's no area of society outside of the medical, that I'm aware of, where ethics has such dominating, continuous application.

Even in Eckert's case, what was done might be legal and ethical, if (big if) the proper authority was present. What I've read suggests the authority was seriously deficient. The doctors are already in trouble; the officers are in trouble; and the city is in trouble. Gila Regional Medical Center better brace for an interesting ride...and they just enraged Eckert by sending him a bill (sending him the bill might have been the correct thing to do, but it sure wasn't smart).
In all fairness...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:34 am UTC

It is offensive to me that any one would be glib about patient consent.
It is a crime if the men at the Cuban Prison are being subjected to medical procedures without consent.
State sponsored murder is a crime in civilized nations.

Because it is happening does not make it right.
When people watch torture and murder for entertainment we call those Dark Times.
These are Dark Times.

A child does have a right to speak up about their own care.
Very few children want immunizations. Adults must make some of those decisions.

When one in four persons will be held in police custody, we need to get some ethics back into the minds of Someone!
You are running a one in four chance of becoming a helpless animal in a cage.
What do you want your people to do to you?

I would like to see no one subjected to medical treatment against their will.
I would like to see medical treatment delivered with care and grace.
I know how hard that is. People are clumsy.

These are Dark Times. How will we as individuals respond to the darkness?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby oxoiron » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:09 pm UTC

Someone needs to invite Cracked.com's Adam Tod Brown to this discussion.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:54 pm UTC

White cop shoots black teenager, opinions differ as to whether or not the teen was a threat at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... _ref=crime
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:59 pm UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:White cop shoots black teenager, opinions differ as to whether or not the teen was a threat at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... _ref=crime

...

Shot him in the back, when his hands were over his head.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:07 pm UTC

Don't you know? Black teens are deadliest when they got their backs turned to you and their hands on their head. The officer is lucky to have made it out alive.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

I'm no fan of the police, but you really need better poster boys than a known criminal with drugs and a gun who only seconds before was in a physical fight with the officer.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:46 pm UTC

Shooting him in the back fixed that right up.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:56 pm UTC

At least the cop is actually on trial.

Using a taser on an unarmed fleeing suspect should be questionable anyway. Pulling a gun on a fleeing unarmed suspect should be automatically treated as criminal. We have to drive that point home: you don't use lethal violence to enforce your will, even if the individual has been violent in the past.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm no fan of the police, but you really need better poster boys than a known criminal with drugs and a gun who only seconds before was in a physical fight with the officer.

oh. Boys fighting.
One boy 'gives'.
The other boy has a gun. That is a powerful position.
Most animals do not continue to fight, after surrender.

Even humans will often stop physical attacks, once the other human has surrendered.
It takes special training to do what you are stating that officer did? It takes special training to kill an opponent after surrender?

Is that what the Gladiators learned to do? They were the full running quarter backs of their day.
Is this simple Mindless Entertainment? For who?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:At least the cop is actually on trial.

Using a taser on an unarmed fleeing suspect should be questionable anyway. Pulling a gun on a fleeing unarmed suspect should be automatically treated as criminal. We have to drive that point home: you don't use lethal violence to enforce your will, even if the individual has been violent in the past.


Everything we react to is in the past. If "a few seconds ago" isn't reasonable cause, what is? The issue here is not if reacting to past violence in kind is reasonable...it's if it was clear that the violence was unnecessary.

Which it might well be in this case, sure. I agree that tasing someone who has clearly surrendered is not necessary, but if the person has just been physically attacking you, there may be some fuzziness. There may be a bit of delay between them deciding to give up and the officer realizing that.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby PeteP » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:04 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm no fan of the police, but you really need better poster boys than a known criminal with drugs and a gun who only seconds before was in a physical fight with the officer.

Even if he had pointed machine guns at a group of orphans with puppies in their arms while declaring his intention to slaughter them all it wouldn't matter. Once he stops being a threat, him being a threat minutes before stops being a justification for shooting him. If he lost his weapon, had his back to the officer and was raising his hands, then he wasn't much of a threat at the time. There can be misjudgments in the threat level, and police don't have supernatural abilities to instantly notice changes in threat level. However once someone turns his back and you have their weapons you probably should reevaluate.

But well this time there is a trial at least.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:11 pm UTC

Once again I'm impressed by the level of hormonal emotional control some people have

If I've just been in a scrambled fight with a known criminal for a gun, he twitches I suspect I fire. Hell I suspect if a cat jumps on a nearby fence I fire.

and don't say "hes been trained", the only training for such scenarios are such scenarios.

As for witnesses? His friend and clearly unreliable fellow criminal and a random civilian in a nice safe truck with no way to make any real professional determination.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

I agree. Cops should just be able to shoot people without consequences, because no amount of training can prepare you to apprehend an unarmed surrendering suspect.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:26 pm UTC

lol - absolutely not, but this specific incident is very murky and insisting it isn't belies an impressive knowledge of the situation (but makes for good soundbites I guess - particularly once the irrelevent racial aspect is added in)

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:47 pm UTC

You really think race is irrelevant?
Do you live in the US? Under a rock?
Shooting someone in the back is murder. That's how it works.

Here's a different one. Differently racist cops!
http://gawker.com/black-man-arrested-do ... 1469590729
Man arrested dozens of times for being Black While Working. Owner of the convenience store has installed cameras to catch the cops harassing him, his customers and his employees.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addams, Deva, solune and 13 guests