Police misbehavior thread

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1778
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Grop » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

To be fair Chen wasn't replying to a post about the difference between the US and the rest of the world.

But certainly information about someone having a gun is going to be more likely (therefore, credible) in the US, and we don't want this to be a thread about gun control in the US.

...

Now that was interesting:

sardia wrote:Because cops are trained to see everything as a threat, even if the threat isnt real or even common. When you have officers being hammered with videos showing all the ways cops have died in the past, it instills a sense of shoot first and ask questions sometimes. Maybe. Doesn't that sound familiar to you? 'Threats are everywhere, always be vigilant, etc etc'.


Are cops really trained to be paranoid? Is that so in every country?
Last edited by Grop on Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

cphite
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:See, everyone keeps saying this. The whole "heat of the moment" thing. But what makes THAT a moment?


It's about stress. Two grown men sitting on the ground, one of them with a toy, is easy to dismiss as nothing from the sidelines - especially after the fact. But when you're actually there, and you've got to decide within a few seconds what they're doing and whether they pose a threat to you or anyone else, that's a lot to process in a moment.


Where is this time pressure you propose coming from? Say they can't tell what it is but even if they believe he has a gun that doesn't mean they have to start shooting immediately. So why exactly do you propose they had to act in seconds. Apparently another officer said for some reason that he had a gun, did he also say "he is preparing to shoot him"? Otherwise I don't exactly see the need to start shooting without properly checking the situation, presumably he had this gun for a while and the police probably didn't teleport there.


Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.

Do you...

A. Shoot, potentially stopping him from shooting someone else, including you, or do you;
B. Wait, potentially letting him shoot someone else, including you?

That is the choice that you have to make, right then. The fact that it turns out to be a completely unnecessary choice, because toy gun, doesn't play into it in that moment. You have to choose - right now - whether you're going to fire or not. Which carries with it the implied choice of letting someone else die. That someone might be you, or someone you work with, the other guy sitting on the ground, or maybe just some random anybody who happens to be around.

You mentioned checking the situation... the situation is fluid. The situation is moment to moment to moment. The guy could be sitting there for hours and then decide to shoot somebody - it happens - you have to react to that moment.

Years ago I worked a security job, we caught a guy trying to rob the place. Called the cops, guy surrendered. We were standing around for almost an hour while the cops were getting statements, and the guy is just standing there, calm as can be... and then suddenly he wasn't. Caught a cop in the face with his head (hands were cuffed behind him) and tried to run. No warning. Just calm one second and then not. Dunno if he saw an opening to escape, or if something spooked him - or if it was just some random synapse that switched his brain from calm to not-calm. The point is, that's how situations tend to work. Moment to moment to moment.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

Grop wrote:To be fair Chen wasn't replying to a post about the difference between the US and the rest of the world.

But certainly information about someone having a gun is going to be more likely (therefore, credible) in the US, and we don't want this to be a thread about gun control in the US.


Norway has a lot of guns relative to the rest of Europe(the most, I believe), and yet it's police are not murder-hobos who reflexively kill everyone. Likewise, everyday citizens in the US are in just as much of a gun rich environment as the police are.

The mere existence of guns doesn't explain or justify the violence on behalf of police.

cphite wrote:Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.

Do you...

A. Shoot, potentially stopping him from shooting someone else, including you, or do you;
B. Wait, potentially letting him shoot someone else, including you?


Why, in this scenario, is it important to imagine that I am a cop?

Is it because, normally, seeing two people, one of which is holding something you cannot see would not be considered a reason to kill for average folk? Why does this change when you envision yourself as a cop?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5502
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:24 pm UTC

The first step is to stop training cops to imagine threats under every rock, shirt or hoodie.

And yes, cops are trained to be super paranoid. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law ... r-problem/
They're trained to be killers, not protectors of the peace. When you're told to be paranoid of everything, everything dangerous tends to be dark skinned.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sableagle » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:45 pm UTC

So they think they're patrolling 1km from the Green Zone in Baghdad, then?

That's not the first time I've read about them being trained to kill people they shouldn't kill.

One reason is that we unintentionally reinforce it with our firearms training. Think of a typical range day at a typical department. The officers all line up together on the firing line, the targets turn or the whistle blows, and all the officers shoot together until a cease fire signal is given. Our muscle memory is to shoot at the same time our fellow officers are shooting.

...

Consistently, in every class, officers would shoot at their target upon hearing others shoot, even when their particular target board did not contain the called target. When asked why they shot at a no-shoot target, the typical response was either, “I don’t know” or “Everyone else was shooting, so I thought I was supposed to be shooting too.”

Remember, this is a class of Firearms Instructors in a low-stress atmosphere (other than they wanted to get their certificates) - not a bunch of new recruits. I would also occasionally call out a non-existent target, and again, inevitably some in the class would fire. The number of instructors shooting at “no-shoot” targets was even greater when we did the night-firing exercises and they were required to use flashlights to see the targets. This indicates they trusted their partner’s judgment (or eyesight) better than their own.

The tone of some of the rest of the article is kind of disconcerting.
In a critical incident, the first goal is to survive. After that objective has been met, the next goal is to survive the following administrative and possible legal challenges.
"If you can't win the dogfight, win the debrief" was cited as a bad attitude for an RAF pilot to have, alongside "If it's not leaking, it's not a Buccaneer."
I don't know and have no opinion.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4301
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.

Do you...

A. Shoot, potentially stopping him from shooting someone else, including you, or do you;
B. Wait, potentially letting him shoot someone else, including you?


This scenario is so non-threatening it's hard to imagine why you would ever have your sidearm drawn.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby natraj » Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:06 am UTC

cphite, your attempt to rationalize the behavior of the cops in this scenario is ridiculous. i have worked in emergency medical services and i can tell you that as medics, we go into scenarios all the time that are just as volatile and potentially dangerous as this; we work with people in heightened states of agitation, people who are on all kinds of intoxicants, people who have just been in violent altercations and are still pissed as heck, people who are hurt and angry, people who are in altered mental states because of illness.

we do it unarmed, and by and large we don't perpetrate violence against our patients. somehow. in fact, somehow literally every other people in this country except for cops are expected to go through their days in all kinds of unpredictable scenarios -- including people (like ems workers, for example!) whose jobs bring them directly into contact with people in all sorts of states of Dangerous Unpredictable Agitation -- and are expected to be able to make decisions about those scenarios that aren't "immediately kill the person if you don't think there is a 0% chance that you will come to harm".

but then when it's cops everyone bends over backwards to explain why this is acceptable and okay and Totally Understandable? i'm not buying it.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5559
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:02 am UTC

Also, people keep forgetting a key part of this scenario while defending the cop's paranoia...

The guy who got shot was talking to the police at the time. He said who he was and what was going on and why the other guy was sitting in the street and what he was holding. He lay down on the ground with his hands above his head saying don't shoot.

He did everything in his power to make the situation non-threatening, and still got shot.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5075
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:56 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So? Regular people get bad information all the time. Cops outside the US get bad information all the time.

You're still not providing a delta.


The example I gave of regular people, in this case, was them calling the cops and leaving (or sticking around and watching at a distance). They had no onus on them to do anything. Which is why there is a distinction between cops and regular people in these types of scenarios. Consider scenarios where someone was waving a toy gun around and cops ended up shooting the person. Yes regular people didn't shoot said person but the regular people could just get the fuck out of dodge. Clearly the cops don't have that option. Now, it certainly doesn't excuse them shooting the person (well in many cases) but the difference if fairly evident.

Now, as to the cops outside the US, that's a different issue. If you look at Europe the numbers are much much lower in terms of police shootings. Now some of that is problem training differences. I have to imagine the bigger difference is in the culture. Gun culture in the US probably doesn't help things, with officers "fearing" for their lives whenever anyone twitches towards a waistband, since they think there might be a gun there. I'd imagine you could overcome this with more/better training and screening of officers.

Also, the gun stats look particularly bad when you're comparing to Europe/Canada/Japan but they look downright rosy if you start looking at places like the Philippines or Brazil. Generalizing as cops "outside the US" not having this issue is pretty wrong for the most part.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25400
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:26 pm UTC

I've already shown in this thread that cops are disproportionately likely to commit homicide even when you account for the prevalence of guns in the general population.

Yes, cops fear for their lives more (or claim they do), but that's part of the problem. They are trained to be paranoid and to shoot first because they see everything as an imminent threat.

And you're right that culture is also a big part of it, but it's the part of culture where we don't hold cops accountable for killing people every few hours, not the part where we have more guns than other countries.

Edit: As a medic natraj also has an onus to do something. And yet to my knowledge that has never resulted in natraj shooting anyone. If you think "run away" and "murder" are the only two options a cop has in that situation, you are part of the cultural problem.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1665
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:42 pm UTC

Relevant quote from Sir Terry Pratchett:

"It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was ‘policeman’. If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers. “
- from Snuff


When we train police to think that they are patrolling a dangerous war zone, they react accordingly. The US never really adopted the Peelian Principles ('policing by consent', I think is the current term, as people consistently ignore/forget history). Unfortunately, without a general purge of some of the older police (teaching the younger ones really bad habits) and additionally inculcating them with the idea that they were NOT soldiers, but officers of the peace, I doubt you'll see real, meaningful change any time soon.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
I'm a sparklepony!

cphite
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:41 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.

Do you...

A. Shoot, potentially stopping him from shooting someone else, including you, or do you;
B. Wait, potentially letting him shoot someone else, including you?


Why, in this scenario, is it important to imagine that I am a cop?


Because the discussion is about something a cop did in this scenario.

Is it because, normally, seeing two people, one of which is holding something you cannot see would not be considered a reason to kill for average folk? Why does this change when you envision yourself as a cop?


An average person wouldn't have been called to the scene under the pretext that someone was armed and possibly suicidal.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:51 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Now, as to the cops outside the US, that's a different issue. If you look at Europe the numbers are much much lower in terms of police shootings. Now some of that is problem training differences. I have to imagine the bigger difference is in the culture. Gun culture in the US probably doesn't help things, with officers "fearing" for their lives whenever anyone twitches towards a waistband, since they think there might be a gun there. I'd imagine you could overcome this with more/better training and screening of officers.

Also, the gun stats look particularly bad when you're comparing to Europe/Canada/Japan but they look downright rosy if you start looking at places like the Philippines or Brazil. Generalizing as cops "outside the US" not having this issue is pretty wrong for the most part.


Norway has the most guns of any country in Europe. Norwegian cops last shot someone for any reason in 2006.

Yeah, yeah, we're not the absolute worst...but places like the Philippines or Brazil also have very obvious, definite enforcement problems. They are not a positive comparison.

cphite wrote:An average person wouldn't have been called to the scene under the pretext that someone was armed and possibly suicidal.


Why not? Security guards get called all the time. Other folks get called in to deal with suicidal folks(including suicide by firearm) all the time. Medical professionals, for instance. And yknow, sometimes regular people just do help. Called or not.

Nobody else responds to someone who's possibly suicidal with a bullet.

Mutex
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mutex » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Chen wrote:Now, as to the cops outside the US, that's a different issue. If you look at Europe the numbers are much much lower in terms of police shootings. Now some of that is problem training differences. I have to imagine the bigger difference is in the culture. Gun culture in the US probably doesn't help things, with officers "fearing" for their lives whenever anyone twitches towards a waistband, since they think there might be a gun there. I'd imagine you could overcome this with more/better training and screening of officers.

Also, the gun stats look particularly bad when you're comparing to Europe/Canada/Japan but they look downright rosy if you start looking at places like the Philippines or Brazil. Generalizing as cops "outside the US" not having this issue is pretty wrong for the most part.


Norway has the most guns of any country in Europe. Norwegian cops last shot someone for any reason in 2006.


But Norway also has a much lower per-capita homicide rate than the US. Being in a country with lots of guns isn't the factor, being in a country where people frequently use them on each other is.

Plus the terrible training.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:57 pm UTC

Back of envelope math shows us at 6.2 murders per 100k, while Norway is 2.2 per 100k. So yeah, big difference there. And also a difference in absolute population.

But even after adjusting for that, our police kill a lot more people than they do. It's not proportional to danger.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5559
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
cphite wrote:Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.

Do you...

A. Shoot, potentially stopping him from shooting someone else, including you, or do you;
B. Wait, potentially letting him shoot someone else, including you?


Why, in this scenario, is it important to imagine that I am a cop?


Because the discussion is about something a cop did in this scenario.

Is it because, normally, seeing two people, one of which is holding something you cannot see would not be considered a reason to kill for average folk? Why does this change when you envision yourself as a cop?


An average person wouldn't have been called to the scene under the pretext that someone was armed and possibly suicidal.

However, you still haven't addressed the fact that one of the guys in this scenario was calmly talking to the cops the whole time telling them what was going on.

Also, shooting at someone you believe to be suicidal seems somewhat counterproductive, no?
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

cphite
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:02 pm UTC

natraj wrote:cphite, your attempt to rationalize the behavior of the cops in this scenario is ridiculous. i have worked in emergency medical services and i can tell you that as medics, we go into scenarios all the time that are just as volatile and potentially dangerous as this; we work with people in heightened states of agitation, people who are on all kinds of intoxicants, people who have just been in violent altercations and are still pissed as heck, people who are hurt and angry, people who are in altered mental states because of illness.


How often do you go into these situations believing that the person is armed? We aren't just talking about someone who is volatile or intoxicated or agitated; we're talking about someone who these officers were told was potentially armed and suicidal.

we do it unarmed, and by and large we don't perpetrate violence against our patients. somehow. in fact, somehow literally every other people in this country except for cops are expected to go through their days in all kinds of unpredictable scenarios -- including people (like ems workers, for example!) whose jobs bring them directly into contact with people in all sorts of states of Dangerous Unpredictable Agitation -- and are expected to be able to make decisions about those scenarios that aren't "immediately kill the person if you don't think there is a 0% chance that you will come to harm".


Other people in the country (including EMS workers) are not required, as part of their job, to specifically deal with armed suspects. I'm not dismissing what you do, but let's be honest - you aren't being called to scenes for the purpose of confronting and controlling an armed suspect who is potentially breaking the law.

but then when it's cops everyone bends over backwards to explain why this is acceptable and okay and Totally Understandable? i'm not buying it.


First off, I don't believe anyone in the discussion said that it was totally okay or acceptable; I've said multiple times that I believe the cop screwed up. All I'm saying is that when these things happen, they're often explainable. Explainable doesn't mean right or acceptable or totally okay; it simply means that it can be explained.

Mutex
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mutex » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Back of envelope math shows us at 6.2 murders per 100k, while Norway is 2.2 per 100k. So yeah, big difference there. And also a difference in absolute population.

But even after adjusting for that, our police kill a lot more people than they do. It's not proportional to danger.


Indeed, I wasn't suggesting the murder rates alone explain the enormous difference, but it's probably a factor, especially coupled with the bad training US police receive that makes them further paranoid. Many other likely factors have been mentioned too. The incredible levels of protection police have from facing blame for their mistakes definitely doesn't help.

So, you join the police force already knowing that homicide rates in your country are high. The training makes you even more paranoid of all the dangers out there, lurking behind every tree. You know that if you gun down someone who later turns out to be innocent you'll likely get away with it. When a situation occurs, you know the risks for shooting are low, while the risks for not shooting seem very high indeed.
Last edited by Mutex on Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chen
Posts: 5075
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, yeah, we're not the absolute worst...but places like the Philippines or Brazil also have very obvious, definite enforcement problems. They are not a positive comparison.


I wasn't trying to make a positive comparison. Saying that cops outside the US don't have problems with killing people is true when "outside the US" means Europe (and the like). It's not really true when you refer to a bunch of other places. Basically it's not just a US problem. It's a problem in many places. Now the reasons can come down to all sorts of things. Bad training, bad pre-screening of officer candidates, corruption etc.

I agree with Mutex and that was more what I meant about gun culture. Not simply having guns but the fact that people are so more willing to use them. Comparing the US to Brazil, in that regard, seems far more reasonable than comparing the US to somewhere like Norway. As gmalivuk said too, the culture of not hold police responsible for these murders, is clearly another big factor. Probably lump that into the "corruption" type reason I mentioned above.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Other people in the country (including EMS workers) are not required, as part of their job, to specifically deal with armed suspects. I'm not dismissing what you do, but let's be honest - you aren't being called to scenes for the purpose of confronting and controlling an armed suspect who is potentially breaking the law.


It's a country in which ownership of a gun is legal and normal. EMS respond to gunshot wounds all the time. Uh, duh there's a gun at the scene.

Chen wrote:I agree with Mutex and that was more what I meant about gun culture. Not simply having guns but the fact that people are so more willing to use them. Comparing the US to Brazil, in that regard, seems far more reasonable than comparing the US to somewhere like Norway. As gmalivuk said too, the culture of not hold police responsible for these murders, is clearly another big factor. Probably lump that into the "corruption" type reason I mentioned above.


Norway has a gun culture too. Why one country and not the other?

We can totally adjust for frequency of use. That is not sufficient to explain it. To be blunt, people keep bringing up excuses for the police that make it not their fault. But, at least in large part, it is. Countries with comparable wealth, etc manage to deal with it far better. Arguing that Brazil/Philippines are a better analogue for the US is really, really hyper focusing on one factor for no discernible reason. And it's not even doing that well. Norway has a higher guns/capita than Brazil. So...it's an objectively worse comparison even in the one factor you're focusing on. Both your examples have about an order of magnitude FEWER guns per capita than Norway.

And we haven't even gotten into the fact that police violence is, to at least some extent, a cause of additional violence. At least some cases of police targeting are very explicitly, obviously a backlash against police violence. More may be so in less obvious ways.

Violence against police is not actually high in the US. And had been dropping. It's not really a good justification for violence by police in the US. It doesn't correlate. Police violence seems remarkably static, given our best available numbers, regardless of violence against them. Lack of correlation is pretty strong evidence against it being a cause.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby natraj » Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

cphite wrote:...


in ems we frequently see people who are armed. not who we suspect are armed, who we know are armed. sometimes patients, sometimes family of patients (like you get called on a domestic violence assault and the perpetrator is still there, still armed, still angry, they're not happy to see you or anyone else either! i have friends who have been threatened (while they were working on a patient) with death if they "let" their patient die! it can be an intense environment to work in when you're trying to save someone's life and their family is in a state of Heightened Emotion and also has a gun! bonus points if they are threatening the paramedics with this and also the family member is the one who shot them in the first place!)

we're not the only ones! social workers who do home visits, certain types of crisis counselors & psych workers, are other people i have worked with who a) regularly deal with people who are violent/agitated/unpredictable, may be or are actually armed, and we all have a positive duty to continue working with them!

none of us are armed! none of us expect to have a right to murder the people we are working with or around! there are so many ways to de-escalate situations without murder! lots of us who aren't cops do it all the time.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

elasto
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

There are two key differences in attitude I think.

The first is pure bravery - a willingness to take a personal risk in order to do your duty. Frontline EMS staff generally have this in spades.

The second is the belief that even if someone is a criminal, they still deserve to have their injury seen to because they are still a human being. Again, this is hardwired into EMS staff, and really the whole medical profession.

US cops seem to be far less willing to take a personal risk than the rank and file cops of other nations, or than, say, frontline EMS staff.

They also seem to think that if someone is a criminal (which, btw, isn't even their call to make, that's the role of the courts) then they are less deserving of basic human rights.

It really shows up when innocent people get beaten up or killed, but it's really no less heinous when it happens to someone who happens to be guilty.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25400
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:03 pm UTC

Brazil and the Philippines weren't brought up to argue that America isn't so bad after all, but to counter the claim that "other countries" refers to a set of police practices that are all better than in the US.

Which wasn't a claim people were actually defending, of course. When someone points out that police in other countries manage to kill far fewer of their citizens, they aren't claiming this is true of *all* other countries, but of *some*. (Phrases like "the rest of the world" and "outside the US" (perhaps) do imply more universality, but I think it's still pretty clear from context that no one was seriously suggesting every other country has less murderous cops than we do.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Imagine you're a cop. You see two guys sitting on the ground and one of them is holding something that looks like it might be a firearm. You aren't sure, but it looks like one. You also aren't sure why the two of them are sitting on the ground. Are they friends or is one holding the other at gunpoint?

Suddenly the guy with the thing that looks like it might be a weapon, points that thing at you, or at the other guy - or otherwise makes a move that you perceive to be a threatening movement, assuming it actually is a weapon.


So I've been watching the apologists work for a while, and it is truly sickening.

First of all, there's video. Sucky as it is, we see a black man lying on his back on the ground and the autistic man is sitting three feet from the black man's toes. So it's not like they're inseparable visually. It's hard to be certain where the police are, but it looks to me like they were 30 degrees off of the line running from the autistic man to the black man; if the latter were east-west, it appears the cops were WSW of them.

So first off the bat, if the officer was shooting at the autistic man, he missed by at least 10 degrees. with an effing assault rifle! (I personally shot a deer at 150 feet with an ordinary rifle and was pissed because I missed his neck and hit him in the back...because he was jumping up a hill.) I could see a 10 degree miss with a handgun at 60 feet or however far over 30 feet, but the officer should have been able to sort that and hit the target with an assault rifle at 150 feet, and a non-moving target, at least.

An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...

So he shot Kinsey on purpose. Why? And lied about it: an obvious lie. A lie so blatant it's clear he didn't care if people knew he was lying. He didn't need true, he didn't need plausible, he didn't even need reasonable doubt...all he needed was something for the apologists to latch onto.

I'm going to go out on an anti-apologist limb here because we need some fair and balanced to offset all these "apologyrations." It's quite easy to explain, really. We have a white mentally disturbed man sitting in the road and a black man thug/gang-banger laying nearby; when in doubt you shoot the thug/gang-banger. He obviously has some kind of mental control over the white man or something, so he's the bad guy. If there is a gun present, he is obviously has it, so he's the bad guy. If there is a threat to police life there, he is obviously the threat, so shoot the threat.

Explains everything.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sableagle » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:23 pm UTC

Yeah. Anyone who's going to have a rifle in a public place has a duty to know how good with it he isn't.
I don't know and have no opinion.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sableagle » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:24 pm UTC

(I know that's not the main point here, but it's something else they apparently feel they can just blow off.)
I don't know and have no opinion.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KittenKaboodle » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:58 am UTC

Coyne wrote:An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...


Give the guy a break, he's just a member of the SWAT team, it's not like he has any special train.... Oh,... wait,... Never mind. :roll:

I would be suspicious of anyone who volunteers for the SWAT team in the first place.
I'm sure at least some (but obviously not all) people get into police work out of a genuine desire to help, but joining a SWAT team takes a certain type of person.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 06, 2016 12:09 pm UTC

Good news, everyone! While the US police are learning from the Scottish police how to occasionally go a few hours without shooting anyone, the Met are learning how to be Police Warriors:

Scotland Yard deploys 600 new armed officers on London's streets in response to European terror attacks

Image

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said the first of the force's additional 600 marksmen, put in place following terror attacks in mainland Europe, are trained and operationally ready.

Officers armed with handguns and semi-automatic weapons, as well as Tasers, will go on routine patrol in the capital.

Police Federation chairman Steve White warned that it could take at least two years to get the additional 1,500 firearms officers planned nationally in place.

Image

"Over the last few years in some force areas they have had to take resources out of neighbourhood policing just to keep the wheels on in terms of reacting to incidents.

"You can't fix this overnight. The resources that have been taken out over the last couple of years is stark."


First image, man on the left: Paul Daniels?

Headline says "deploys 600" but article says "the first of the force's additional 600," which isn't quite the same thing.

600 in London (population 8.6 million). That leaves 900 for the rest of Britain (population 55.5 million).

Second image, second man from left: AI AWP 7.62x51mm. Great for making big holes in important bits of people, even at considerable ranges, even if they're wearing up to lvl IIIa body armour ... but one hostage-shooter, machete-swinger, bomb-activater or whatever else you're trying to interrupt in a hurry isn't going to stop a 7.62 millimetre full metal jacket, is he? Where's it going next in a city of 8.6 million people?

Things have been going well because we've had neighbourhood policing and friendly interactions between police and communities ... and since 2010 we've been pulling funds away from that and setting them aside for "reacting to incidents."

We can't get the recruits we need in the numbers we need at the quality we need. Sound familiar?

Green grew up in Seabrook, Texas, and moved with his family to Midland, when he was 14. According to school officials, he dropped out of high school in 2002 after completing the 10th grade and moved to Denver City, Texas, where he earned his high school equivalency diploma in 2003. Days after a January 2005 arrest for alcohol possession, Green enlisted in the U.S. Army. In doing so, he was granted a moral character waiver for prior alcohol and other drug related offenses that might have otherwise disqualified him. Green graduated from infantry training and was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. According to a military spokesperson and a criminal complaint filed in connection with the charges, Green was honorably discharged from the military "due to antisocial personality disorder but before the military was aware of the incident."

Calley graduated from Miami Edison High School in Miami and then attended Palm Beach Junior College in 1963. He dropped out in 1964 after receiving unsatisfactory grades, consisting of one C, two Ds, and four Fs. Calley then worked at a variety of jobs before enlistment, including as a bellhop, dishwasher, salesman, insurance appraiser, and train conductor. Calley underwent eight weeks of basic combat training at Fort Bliss, Texas, followed by eight weeks of advanced individual training as a company clerk at Fort Lewis, Washington. Having scored high enough on his Armed Forces Qualification tests, he applied for and was subsequently accepted into Officer Candidate School (OCS). He then began 26 weeks of junior officer training at Fort Benning in mid-March 1967. Upon graduating from OCS Class No. 51 on September 7, 1967, he was commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry. Following his commission, Calley was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade, and began training at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, in preparation for deployment to South Vietnam.

Calley's evaluations described him as "average" as an officer. Later, as the My Lai investigation progressed, a more negative picture emerged. Men in his platoon reported to army investigators that Calley lacked common sense and could not read a map or compass properly. A number of men assigned under Calley claimed that because he was so disliked, some secretly discussed fragging him.


Let's hope they're more interested in standards than in numbers, eh?
I don't know and have no opinion.

Chen
Posts: 5075
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:So first off the bat, if the officer was shooting at the autistic man, he missed by at least 10 degrees. with an effing assault rifle! (I personally shot a deer at 150 feet with an ordinary rifle and was pissed because I missed his neck and hit him in the back...because he was jumping up a hill.) I could see a 10 degree miss with a handgun at 60 feet or however far over 30 feet, but the officer should have been able to sort that and hit the target with an assault rifle at 150 feet, and a non-moving target, at least.

An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...

So he shot Kinsey on purpose. Why? And lied about it: an obvious lie. A lie so blatant it's clear he didn't care if people knew he was lying. He didn't need true, he didn't need plausible, he didn't even need reasonable doubt...all he needed was something for the apologists to latch onto.


Unless I'm misreading you're saying that because the shot against a non-moving target in this circumstance should be something a trained officer should be able to do with a rifle, no problem, then the fact he hit Kinsey implies he did it on purpose. I could buy that logic, if 2 of his 3 shots didn't miss completely. The fact he missed 2 out of 3 shots indicates that he was a pretty damn bad shot to begin with, so the premise that he could have made the shot in question, no problem, is not in fact valid. Now this doesn't prove that he wasn't trying to shoot Kinsey on purpose. But the logic you provided to say he certainly shot Kinsey on purpose is flawed.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Coyne wrote:So first off the bat, if the officer was shooting at the autistic man, he missed by at least 10 degrees. with an effing assault rifle! (I personally shot a deer at 150 feet with an ordinary rifle and was pissed because I missed his neck and hit him in the back...because he was jumping up a hill.) I could see a 10 degree miss with a handgun at 60 feet or however far over 30 feet, but the officer should have been able to sort that and hit the target with an assault rifle at 150 feet, and a non-moving target, at least.

An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...

So he shot Kinsey on purpose. Why? And lied about it: an obvious lie. A lie so blatant it's clear he didn't care if people knew he was lying. He didn't need true, he didn't need plausible, he didn't even need reasonable doubt...all he needed was something for the apologists to latch onto.


Unless I'm misreading you're saying that because the shot against a non-moving target in this circumstance should be something a trained officer should be able to do with a rifle, no problem, then the fact he hit Kinsey implies he did it on purpose. I could buy that logic, if 2 of his 3 shots didn't miss completely. The fact he missed 2 out of 3 shots indicates that he was a pretty damn bad shot to begin with, so the premise that he could have made the shot in question, no problem, is not in fact valid. Now this doesn't prove that he wasn't trying to shoot Kinsey on purpose. But the logic you provided to say he certainly shot Kinsey on purpose is flawed.


Sizes in Coyne's post changed for emphasis of what I took to be the point.

The police apparently feel no qualms about handing a loaded AR-15 to an utterly incompetent rifleman and having him spray bullets all over the town, and he apparently had no qualms about doing so or no idea how bad a shot he was and not enough sense to realise that a man's got to know his limitations. When the news that he'd fired three shots from that range with that weapon and missed twice went public, the PD didn't immediately release a statement saying: "We had no idea people that incompetent were somehow getting through training and assessment. We have immediately removed everybody's qualification on that weapon, and are in the process of reviewing our training and assessment procedures with an aim to starting the process of re-training and re-assessing all officers to make sure they have something at least resembling a clue how to use the weapons accurately, how good they are with the weapons, what the weapons are capable of and, most importantly, how to handle the weapons without accidentally firing them. We're also getting experts in from other places like Switzerland, Scotland, Norway, Iceland and so on to teach us how to talk to people without shooting them first." The police were called, so they showed up and sprayed some bullets around and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable. The shooter was incompetent and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable, too. I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd hit the innocent man twice in the chest and once in the head before finding out what the situation was, but if We The People are going to pay a select few of our number to carry weapons around and enforce laws meant to protect us from each other (including them) then We The People (including senior members among those select few) ought to be making damn sure they're fit for purpose. That includes being able to judge when to shoot and when not to shoot, and being able to judge whether you've got a good shot at your target right now.

Image

The cop who fired in the event being discussed apparently wasn't good enough to intervene in that situation.

I'm not saying they should all be good enough to make the shot here:

Image

... partly because, as the articles about Scottish police have mentioned, shooting isn't necessarily the right response to that situation and partly because shooting is quite often not the right response and we want most of our police officers to spend a lot of their time learning how to handle situations without anyone getting shot rather than all of it on the range.

Yes, you could shoot that guy. Aim 40mm above (because your sight line is above your trajectory at that range) the chamber of his RH pistol, put a hole through both chamber walls and the round, knock the gun back into his shoulder and blow a great big crater through his shoulder and down he goes with no gun aimed at anyone. If necessary, shoot him again after she moves. She'll probably run towards you, though, so maybe your mate off to your right should make the second shot if it's necessary. Alternatively, you could try to get him to put the guns down or try to get him to aim them both at your armoured chest or wait for some writhing to give you a clear shot through his left eye and brainstem and jsut hope his right hand doesn't spasm the wrong way when you take it.

Thing is, the un-named trigger-happy rookie ...
Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey, “decorated” and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team.

:shock:
... er ... okay, the un-named, decorated, trigger-happy member of the city's SWAT team can't shoot for toffee and
a) is convinced he's a better shot than Master Chief
b) doesn't know or care how good a shot he is or
c) knows he's a lousy shot and doesn't care that he's putting innocent lives in danger every time he touches that particular piece of hardware.
Any of those ought to disqualify him as an armed police officer, let alone as a member of the supposedly "elite" SWAT units.

It's basic gun control. If you've got a gun, you ought to be fully in control of it. If you can't control it, don't have it.
I don't know and have no opinion.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The first step is to stop training cops to imagine threats under every rock, shirt or hoodie.

And yes, cops are trained to be super paranoid. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law ... r-problem/
They're trained to be killers, not protectors of the peace. When you're told to be paranoid of everything, everything dangerous tends to be dark skinned.

AHHH! (fuck!)
Who ever wrote that is better than Steven King.

(deep breath) Gangs in Uniform.
It's best to be on their 'Good Side'.

YES! In most situations being White and Obviously Educated gets people a pass.
In the united states a person must be able to back their claim to personhood with money.
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
addams
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

oops.
Double Post.
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: 892
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:13 am UTC

Chen wrote:Unless I'm misreading you're saying that because the shot against a non-moving target in this circumstance should be something a trained officer should be able to do with a rifle, no problem, then the fact he hit Kinsey implies he did it on purpose. I could buy that logic, if 2 of his 3 shots didn't miss completely. The fact he missed 2 out of 3 shots indicates that he was a pretty damn bad shot to begin with, so the premise that he could have made the shot in question, no problem, is not in fact valid. Now this doesn't prove that he wasn't trying to shoot Kinsey on purpose. But the logic you provided to say he certainly shot Kinsey on purpose is flawed.

Probably you're right, but I was making a point of using the same tortured brand of logic as the apologists, only for the "dark, not the light." Logic that derives from a premise such as, "Mr. Officer, white knight, scion of all that is right, protector of the light, there must be some reason why he's blameless."

Which is an attitude at the very foundations of the problems we discuss in this thread: the attitude that officers must always be blameless.

This is the real story: a man on his back with his hands in the air, somehow was shot. On purpose, accidental, doesn't matter.

Sableagle wrote:The police were called, so they showed up and sprayed some bullets around and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable. The shooter was incompetent and they're acting like that's entirely acceptable, too. I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd hit the innocent man twice in the chest and once in the head before finding out what the situation was, but if We The People are going to pay a select few of our number to carry weapons around and enforce laws meant to protect us from each other (including them) then We The People (including senior members among those select few) ought to be making damn sure they're fit for purpose. That includes being able to judge when to shoot and when not to shoot, and being able to judge whether you've got a good shot at your target right now.


Exactly. They're treating it as acceptable, and it isn't. That is it, in a nutshell.
In all fairness...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5502
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:19 pm UTC

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... CAkWPvha8A
I'm surprised nobody posted this shooting by police yet. Note the poor attempt at a cover up as cops shooting the suspect turns off his camera.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:An officer that misses like that with an assault rifle has no business touching one. There he is, touching...

So he shot Kinsey on purpose. Why? And lied about it: an obvious lie. A lie so blatant it's clear he didn't care if people knew he was lying. He didn't need true, he didn't need plausible, he didn't even need reasonable doubt...all he needed was something for the apologists to latch onto.


It's a really bad miss, yes. Either he intended to shoot the other chap, or he was REALLY incompetent and also trigger happy. Which...is a really horrible explanation too. The two other rounds fired missing implies that incompetence is likely, though. Maybe not as the sole problem, obviously, but it's a cinch he's not a crack shot.

I mean, it's not really incompetent or evil, if you think about it. Someone can be both. All this story does is accept the incompetence, it doesn't disprove any potential ill intent.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Lazar » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:25 am UTC

A new DoJ report uncovers numerous police abuses in Baltimore, including unwarranted body cavity searches (many by the same officer), unlawful orders and tasings.

There were several examples of officers ordered to “clear corners.” One sergeant wrote about the practice, “I used to say at roll call in NE when I ran the shift: Do not treat criminals like citizens. Citizens want that corner cleared.”

2) Officers had a template for arresting people standing near a public housing development who can’t give a “valid reason” for being there. The template left blanks for the date, time, name and location of the arrest, but the words “black male” were already filled in for a description of the subject.


Also:

California police shoot a mentally ill black man 16 times, claiming that he lunged at them with a knife (which appears to be a lie).

LA police kill a black man when they mistake him for a suspect.

A Florida cop kills a woman during a civilian training exercise.

…And apparently that last guy is a real piece of work:

Three years before the shooting that led to the death of 73-year-old Mary Knowlton on Tuesday, Lee Coel was accused twice of using excessive force and relieved of his duties before investigators found he violated department policies and was allowed to resign.

This year, he was sued in Punta Gorda after he ordered his K-9 to attack a bicyclist who was stopped for riding without a light at night, inflicting severe injuries that required surgery.
Last edited by Lazar on Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:55 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5559
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:07 am UTC

You got to love the way this police department insists they did absolutely nothing wrong.

“Our trooper had a set of facts in front of him and responded the way he was trained, the way that was safest for him and his public,” Cecil said. “Putting yourself in the trooper’s position: He’s giving commands, he’s yelling, he’s not getting a response. Should he de-escalate the yelling? Or should he escalate? … You weren’t there. And I wasn’t there.”

Cecil confirmed that Villegas pointed a gun at the 7-year-old, but did so unintentionally, and that he threatened to shoot Walton because he “perceived a threat.”


“[Walton] has an opportunity as a parent to use this as a learning experience. A teachable moment for his daughter — a valuable lesson about the community and interactions with law enforcement,” Cecil said. “But instead he chose to make it a negative in a very irresponsible way.”
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7535
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby phlip » Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:03 am UTC

"But in light of that, this is a positive story. … This case is a prime example of how things should be done."

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5559
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:19 am UTC

Oh yeah, I'd meant to point that choice bit out as well, but forgot in the massive wall of :roll:
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

elasto
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:12 am UTC

Also, this is fairly telling I feel:

The department, he added, has not been in direct contact with Walton since the traffic stop.

“Absolutely not. Absolutely not,” Cecil said. “This is not a situation where we feel that we need to reach out to him. He’s the one who started this negative relationship and negative communication.”

There's no sense here that the role of the police is to serve the public and not the other way around.

Given that the driver was an innocent victim of screw-ups that occurred before he even rented the vehicle, there's a childish churlishness unbecoming of a public servant.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Qaanol and 8 guests