Thread: To serve and protect? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029490
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
So here's another example of someone calling the police for help. Don't worry about your suicidal boyfriend, ma'am: we'll kill him for you.

Cases like this are reported in the news with depressing regularity: the police are called by someone concerned about a distressed relative, they turn up, bark orders, and shoot the relative. Or sometimes they shoot the person calling for help.

This is, I think, closely related to the killings of Freddie Gray and the like: the police have precisely one move in their playbook, which is to demand compliance at gunpoint, and back themselves into a corner when they don't immediately obtain that compliance (because the victim is deaf, or asleep, or drunk, or distressed and incoherent, or ...)

From the article, "if you ever need to call the police to deal with a problem, bear in mind Officer Carballosa's appreciation of how problems are solved."
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
What happens next?
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Fact:

When police fire shots, they are usually placed on administrative duty until the circumstances of the shot firing can be assessed for whether they were justifiable shots.

Prediction:

The assessment will produce the conclusion that the two officers were justified in their actions.

If some organization manages to make it so that there is further investigation beyond the internal police assessment, the officers will say they feared for their lives and this claim will cover and excuse their actions.

They will be returned to active duty with no consequences.

There will be no changes in policy.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Cases like this are reported in the news with depressing regularity: the police are called by someone concerned about a distressed relative, they turn up, bark orders, and shoot the relative. Or sometimes they shoot the person calling for help.
The phrase which springs to mind is 'Shoot first, ask questions later".

Speaking as someone fortunate enough to live in a peaceful part of the world it's difficult to comprehend the problems of the US and it's apparent culture of violence.

Having said that I do recall an incident nearby in a quiet village, when a domestic incident escalated into someone waving a machete around. The Police turned up, claimed the rubber bullet gun had jammed so just shot him dead.
There was no outcry, no rioting. Just an inquest at a later date which no one took much interest in.

Around these parts most folks respect the Police and their judgement in such matters. Parts of America seem to be suffering something of a breakdown in the relationship between public and Police at present.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Prediction:

The assessment will produce the conclusion that the two officers were justified in their actions.

If some organization manages to make it so that there is further investigation beyond the internal police assessment, the officers will say they feared for their lives and this claim will cover and excuse their actions.

They will be returned to active duty with no consequences.

There will be no changes in policy.
Much as I understand your cynicism, I don’t think this is the case.

Freddie Gray was the last straw for Baltimore. The entire justice system is so thoroughly broken, and so many people have witnessed it firsthand...

There were a bunch of potential reforms in the MD legislature this session. They didn’t make it out of committee. The legislature postponed, and the next week Freddie was killed. They may not be covering them where you are, but the protests in Baltimore haven’t stopped (there’s a more-or-less all day one tomorrow). People are willing to die for the promise that the ruling class is at least going to try to implement some reforms.

It’s going to take a lot of work to restore trust of the police in the community. But people are trying - in Baltimore there are some cops on foot patrol handing out leaflets connecting residents to needed services. Some departments are humanizing themselves with #hugacop (I can hardly stand the irony of that one). There are a lot of people trying to change police culture so that it’s unacceptable to refer to citizens as civilians, or talk about us like we’re the enemy. Some departments are trying to change their incentive and reward structures so that good police work rather than random arrests are rewarded. A lot of places are trying to make it easier to fire a police officer for misconduct even if criminal charges aren’t filed against them, and there’s a move to create a national database of officers fired for misconduct so they don’t wind up getting hired at another department. They’re training officers to de-escalate situations rather than simply arresting people and seeing if the charges stick.

There’s hope that enough people have become aware of the systemic problems that we have that we might get some meaningful change sometime soon.

And Baltimore is not going to stop until that happens. The city and commerce may get shut down, and people may get get arrested and lose their careers, and some may die. But it’s going to change.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I'd be fascinated to hear their excuse for being unable to taser a man with a knife.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
All this stuff is happening on the East Coast, and here in California I get uptight and resentful when I see a uniform. Our neighborhood has a decent set of hard working law enforcement officers, but I want to know if they are speaking the hell up about this shit. And if not, why not?

[ 30. May 2015, 02:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
If you wonder about California Law Enforcement, there's plenty of shame to go around: Judge rules on Orange Country Prosecutor misconduct.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you wonder about California Law Enforcement, there's plenty of shame to go around: Judge rules on Orange Country Prosecutor misconduct.
Yes, sadly it's an
old story everywhere in the US.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
This is a huge problem for family members of the mentally ill. Many, many people with schizophrenia have been shot by police because they fail to comply with orders. It's very hard to hear well, or sometimes even see well, when in the midst of a psychotic episode. Audial hallucinations can be much "louder," than the police and, of course, paranoia is making them think these men have come with the sole purpose of killing them (maybe not so far wrong.)

I had to call the police to come and help me find someone who had threatened suicide and then ran out into the dark countryside. I repeated over and over that he was not armed and always very gentle, just looking for the river so he could drown himself. Then, just before they arrived, I saw the neighbor's big dog who would most likely have tried to protect his neighbor from the police and started some sort of violence. It was terrifying, but this particular group of deputies turned out to be kind and knowledgeable about mental illness.

The root problem is that police are not mental health professionals, yet that's who we have to call. The, proverbial, "men in white coats," who will take our loved ones to a psychiatric hospital are only seen in old movies these days. No doctors or medics will come to our house and help. If the patient is afraid to keep appointments, then the only way to get help for them is to call young nervous men with guns.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you wonder about California Law Enforcement, there's plenty of shame to go around: Judge rules on Orange Country Prosecutor misconduct.
Pfft. Google "police misconduct Oakland," that's closer to me. Be prepared for the browser to crash, though, because it will probably give you a metric ton of hits.

My point was, I am having trouble reconciling the nice guys/ gals I went to high school with with these trigger happy folk in the stories. i know there are good cops out there, because I pass them a coffee cup at the local 7-11. In Detriot, during the occupy movement, local law enforcement made a public statement promising to keep the peace and to support the right to protest-- thank you, Dertroit, but where are the rest of the good cops out there? Don't they want to distance themselves from someone who would shoot a recilining man threatening suicide?

[ 30. May 2015, 16:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
All this stuff is happening on the East Coast, and here in California I get uptight and resentful when I see a uniform. Our neighborhood has a decent set of hard working law enforcement officers, but I want to know if they are speaking the hell up about this shit. And if not, why not?
Oh, I still get nervous when I see someone in uniform. It's a work in progress, and you can't tell by looking at them which kind of a cop they are. And there seem to be a certain number of people who want to prove they're not racist by doing to a white woman what they would normally do to a black man.

And some of them seem to currently be saying something along the lines of 'but if we can't murder innocent people for sport we can't do our jobs.'

It's somewhat nerve-wracking in a place where looking at a cop too long is probable cause.

quote:
My point was, I am having trouble reconciling the nice guys/ gals I went to high school with with these trigger happy folk in the stories. i know there are good cops out there, because I pass them a coffee cup at the local 7-11. In Detriot, during the occupy movement, local law enforcement made a public statement promising to keep the peace and to support the right to protest-- thank you, Dertroit, but where are the rest of the good cops out there? Don't they want to distance themselves from someone who would shoot a recilining man threatening suicide?
I don't know the police culture in Oakland, but if it's anything like the culture in Baltimore, they can't speak out. One of the last cops in Baltimore who spoke out against a fellow officer was driven off the force by things like having rats placed on his windshield.

There really is an us vs. them attitude that we're working hard to change. But even the black cops in Baltimore are, for the most part, not actually members of the community. They didn't grow up here and they don't live here so it's easy to see residents of the city as "others" who wouldn't have the problems they have if they didn't make the bad decisions they make.

Without knowing exactly what happened, it's hard for a lot of them to condemn the violence of their fellow officers, because they can easily imagine making a mistake in the heat of the moment. When someone is uncooperative it's hard to know exactly how much force is going to be necessary to subdue them, and then to use exactly and only that much force.

On the other hand, while I know the 21-foot rule likely makes this particular shooting legally acceptable, I'd think (hope) most cops would find it hard to justify.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The phrase which springs to mind is 'Shoot first, ask questions later".

Speaking as someone fortunate enough to live in a peaceful part of the world it's difficult to comprehend the problems of the US and it's apparent culture of violence.

Having said that I do recall an incident nearby in a quiet village, when a domestic incident escalated into someone waving a machete around. The Police turned up, claimed the rubber bullet gun had jammed so just shot him dead.
There was no outcry, no rioting. Just an inquest at a later date which no one took much interest in.

Around these parts most folks respect the Police and their judgement in such matters. Parts of America seem to be suffering something of a breakdown in the relationship between public and Police at present.
The UK is not less violent than the US. It is less well-armed, though and this is a Massive difference.
As far as respect and trust for police, rather depends on who you ask. Yes, I would agree that it is better in the UK than the US, but it isn't quite idyllic.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Parts of America seem to be suffering something of a breakdown in the relationship between public and Police at present.
There is definitely a breakdown in relations between police and public in many American cities. News like the above is being seen all over America, though, and is spreading that distrust.

And there is no reassuring voice from law enforcement officials, saying that police brutality is not a law enforcement family value.

i have been reading the biography of John Adams. Ironically, one of the things that the earliest revolutionaries promoted as justification for government overthrow was arbitrariness and brutality shown by colonial law enforcement. This is what concerns me-- when you have a situation where the common citizen considers it safest not to trust the people tasked to protect them, you are setting the stage for revolt. Not just riot-- revolt.

It baffles me that more law enforcement personnel can't see the long- game benefits of speaking the hell up.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It depends on where you are in the UK and what race and/or age you are. No, you are unlikely to be shot, (unless you do something stupid in one of the areas where there are armed police like Paternoster Square), but young people and mixed race / black kids are having a very rough time. I don't know many Islamic kids currently, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were struggling too.

My daughter, although obviously my daughter when you see us together, is assumed to be Turkish / Mediterranean / Islamic / mixed race when she's on her own. She avoids the police these days after being aggressively questioned too many times when just walking through the city where she was at university.

One of the kids I work with complained recently that his local police take any opportunities provided to beat them up and/or give them a hard time when they see them on the street, and that it happens to all the black kids. He's 15 and mixed race. I told him that was what the filming option on his mobile phone was for and we could put complaints together. One of the things he reported was the police threatening to dump a friend into a rival gang area rather than charging this kid after an arrest. (Basically aiming to get him killed in Hackney, rather than filing the paperwork.)

I've seen the police giving a group of young people in the town here a hard time one night and, as I knew half of them, drifted over to say hello and were they OK, which moved things on a bit for the kids. That group regularly told stories of the police being provocative and then arresting the youngsters when they retaliated. That group were teenagers seen as trouble makers (why else would I be working with them?).

We heard the same stories from our own kids as at the same time the middle of town (market town) was made an ASBO area that meant that no young person could walk home from air cadets or Guides or Scouts as they would be arrested for breaching the ASBO.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:



One of the kids I work with complained recently that his local police take any opportunities provided to beat them up and/or give them a hard time when they see them on the street, and that it happens to all the black kids. He's 15 and mixed race. I told him that was what the filming option on his mobile phone was for and we could put complaints together.

I
i gavr pretty much the same advice to my nephew. He is mixed heritage Anglo- Mexican, but visually he is so Mexican you could put him in an ad for El Toritos holding a plate of flautas. He said that cops would slow down and idle their vehicles while he and his (chicano ) friends waited for the bus, as they and many other kids did every day. I told him to video their passing, photo the license plates, and keep track of the dates.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
cJust an observation on my part. It seems that there is a difference in policing that comes from where the police force places its emphasis on the phrase: To serve and protect. If the emphasis is on serving you have a more neighborhood, community based police force which comes to the aid on those in need regardless of racial or economic differences. However if the emphasis is on protection, you see more of a militarized police force who are more concerned about protecting the status quo even though the status quo favors the upper white ecilon.

Police who are service oriented seem to want help young adults before they get too far afield. Police who want to protect whill nab a kid at the first time of trouble. I saw that with my first son. He worked very well with police who took an interest in him and wanted to work with him. On the other hand police who were into protection did not care whom they had nabbed as a person.

Fortunately my son has become a responsible adult who is raising two daughters of his own.

As I said, this is just a personal observation.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
This probably looks like the place for this: the Guardian is doing what Federal government won't do, and that's tally the number of people who die during an encounter with US law enforcement.

The link is here.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
By way of contrast
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Turns out the Baltimore prosecutor directed the police to crack down on Freddie Gray's neighborhood, and then arrested them for it.

What a moron that little girl is.

When those cops are acquitted and Baltimore goes up in flames again she should be arrested.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Firstly, what's with "little girl" comment ?

Secondly, why are you equating being asked to target a high crime area with being asked to be abusive ?

quote:
Butler, who said he has been a shift commander on and off for the past 15 years, added, "You have to use whatever tools you have — whether it be bike officers, cameras, foot officers, whatever you have — to abate that problem. So you're going to have to be aggressive."
Perhaps being effective, rather than aggressive would help. Intelligence led policing would be a start.

[ 11. June 2015, 07:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Apparently the prosecutor specifically told the police to be especially vigilant in the place where Freddie Grey first encountered the police. (BTW the prosecutor had no authority to tell the police how to do their job.)

The area was used for drug dealing, and Freddie Grey had been convicted several times for dealing drugs. It's not surprising that the police chased him when he started running.

Moo
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Why, surely if they know him they know where he lives or could usually be found ?

There is then the opportunity to plan an arrest in a controlled way. Possibly at a time when you know he is likely to be undressed and unarmed.

(It also explains nothing about why he was transported in the way he was.)

[ 11. June 2015, 12:39: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why, surely if they know him they know where he lives or could usually be found ?
The point is that they suspected that he was in the act of drug dealing.
quote:

(It also explains nothing about why he was transported in the way he was.)
I agree.

Moo
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
what's with "little girl" comment ?
That's how she comes across, both in her statements and her actions.

Petulant and amateurish, like a little girl.

Definitely not what you would expect from a prosecutor in a major city. I would argue that there are people dead in Baltimore right now that would otherwise be alive if they had a proper, mature, professional State's Attorney.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why, surely if they know him they know where he lives or could usually be found ?
The point is that they suspected that he was in the act of drug dealing.
In terms of actually stopping drug dealing happening in the longer term, that is an incredibly short sighted way of dealing with the situation. And an unsafe way to arrest someone you think might be armed.

So if he regularly deals there - you get surveillance evidence of dealing, (then you also will be able to catch other dealers, buyers etc), you find out his contacts and connections up the food chain to be able to arrest the people organising the illegal trade on the street - maybe yuo get a warrant to bug his phone. Then you arrest him at three am when he's in bed asleep in his underwear.

I mean seriously, how will they prove he's dealing ? He can just chuck anything he has on him - they might get him for possessing a small amount if that. It is an incredibly stupid policing strategy. If they have evidence because they've filmed him, then they don't need to chase him.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Is it normal for the lawyer in charge of the Prosecutions office to direct the police how they should prioritise and what they should do?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Turns out the Baltimore prosecutor directed the police to crack down on Freddie Gray's neighborhood, and then arrested them for it.
I'm not sure there's a direct connection unless you think "crack down" is a euphemism for "sever spines".
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Turns out the Baltimore prosecutor directed the police to crack down on Freddie Gray's neighborhood, and then arrested them for it.
I'm not sure there's a direct connection unless you think "crack down" is a euphemism for "sever spines".
Oh, the police severed his spine?

I didn't realize that fact had already been established.

Conviction should be a slam dunk then....
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it normal for the lawyer in charge of the Prosecutions office to direct the police how they should prioritise and what they should do?
"Lt. Kenneth Butler, president of the Vanguard Justice Society, a group for minority and female Baltimore police officers....said that he has never seen such orders come from the state's attorney's office"
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
... It's not surprising that the police chased him when he started running.

Moo
Chasing <> shooting.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

(It also explains nothing about why he was transported in the way he was.)
This is the crux of the thing. No matter what anyone did, or was presumed to have done, these "rough rides" are bullshit.

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I would argue that there are people dead in Baltimore right now that would otherwise be alive if they had a proper, mature, professional State's Attorney.
And I would argue that there are people dead in Baltimore that would be alive if they had properly trained, mature police.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I would argue that there are people dead in Baltimore that would be alive if they had properly trained, mature police.
Maybe Mosby would have served the city better as a cop, since according to her claims her family has been in law enforcement since roughly 1890.

Her service as State's Attorney has led to a devastating spike in violent crime, and will again when the prosecution of the six police officers inevitably fails.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Her service as State's Attorney has led to a devastating spike in violent crime, and will again when the prosecution of the six police officers inevitably fails.
So you are admitting the system is so fucked up that, even if they should be found guilty, they will not be.
So, whose fault is the violence?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I'm not admitting anything.

I'm telling you that they won't be convicted.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
lilBuddha, As a complete outsider, I'd say that the initial fault is that of US society as a whole. It seems to be one that is permeated with violence and has been for a long time. The carrying of arms has long been something which many others find inexplicable, but that is only one aspect. I appreciate there are bases in the conquest of the territory, but the violence involved there seems only to have occurred in Canada and Australia, where there was an expropriation of the original owners of the land, to a much lesser extent. Then when we had the Port Arthur massacre 18 odd years ago, there was overwhelming support for the anti-guns laws introduced and enforced.

If a country is going to tolerate such widespread violence, it must expect some reflection of that in its police forces.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha, As a complete outsider, I'd say that the initial fault is that of US society as a whole. It seems to be one that is permeated with violence and has been for a long time. The carrying of arms has long been something which many others find inexplicable, but that is only one aspect. I appreciate there are bases in the conquest of the territory, but the violence involved there seems only to have occurred in Canada and Australia, where there was an expropriation of the original owners of the land, to a much lesser extent. Then when we had the Port Arthur massacre 18 odd years ago, there was overwhelming support for the anti-guns laws introduced and enforced.

If a country is going to tolerate such widespread violence, it must expect some reflection of that in its police forces.
That gets a [Overused]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Gee D,

I'm not sure tolerance is the right word. ISTM, a major problem is the mythos of the US. And that involves the gun and the way the country expanded.
Australia's conquering of their continent's native peoples was much more one-sided and much quicker.*
Canada's expansion was much more peaceful. Not completely peaceful, but not as filled with war and betrayal.
The US' expansion through their portion of North America was much dependent on the gun. The hardy pioneer, bravely fighting off the hostile Indian; the gun-slingin cowboy fighting off murderous bandidos, savages and outlaws are part of their myth.
The UK is at least as violent as the US, but guns are not wedded to its myths. Guns are not as tied to identity.

So you are right in that the police are part of society, therefore will share its values. But it is not as simple as 'tolerate'.
IMO, those who have power have a greater responsibility.
Though it can be understood why police might behave as they do, it needn't be tolerated.
The police, as a group, use The Thin Blue Line mindset to protect their abuses.
It is easy from the outside to look at the US and say 'they bring it on themselves'. And whilst this isn't untrue, it isn't complete. And changing it isn't easy.


*Currently reading a biography of Red Cloud which gives a bit of background to this part of this discussion.

[ 12. June 2015, 11:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you are admitting the system is so fucked up that, even if they should be found guilty, they will not be.
The press conferences that Mosby has held may have seriously reduced the chances of a guilty verdict. Prosecutors are not supposed to hold press conferences like that. Defense attorneys are likely to argue that she has made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial.

I'm not saying anything about guilt or innocence. I am saying that if prosecutors want to get a conviction, there are certain things they should not do.

Moo
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
That assumes that prosecuters want to get a conviction.

Where prosecuters are political appointments, there may be times when it's politically expedient to sabotage a trial (either through pre-emptive press conferences, leaking important evidence, or simply being totally incompetant in court) and let someone walk free who should have been found guilty.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The press conferences that Mosby has held may have seriously reduced the chances of a guilty verdict. Prosecutors are not supposed to hold press conferences like that.
I'm not so sure. State's Attorney for the City of Baltimore is an elected position. You can argue that state prosecutors shouldn't be elected, but it seems anti-democratic to argue that elected officials should not speak to the press about the exercise of their office.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but it seems anti-democratic to argue that elected officials should not speak to the press about the exercise of their office.
Sub judice is sub judice, whether one of the parties is an elected official or not. There's nothing anti-democratic about expecting an elected prosecutor to limit his or her public statements to something along the lines of "My office has today charged N people with offenses A, B and C in relation to event D. We will be presenting our evidence in open court, and the trial is expected to take place on such and such a timescale. We are sure that you understand that further comment from this office on the details of the case against these people would be improper."
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
What worries me a little about this is that whatever the reality about US police as a whole (and I'm in the UK so I'm distanced from them) I suspect that there's been enough damage to their image in the last year or so to mess up relations between police and public for decades. Once the public lose confidence in the police (or lose it further, I guess, since many PoC never had that much confidence in the first place) the whole situation can become self-perpetuating. Confirmation bias kicks in, and evidence that the police are out of control trigger happy killers becomes so much easier to believe than anything to the contrary. Good people don't want to become police officers. The public are hostile to the police, and the police are nervous and twitchy as a result. I think the best way to deal with this situation is for there to be a thorough investigation of wrongdoing, appropriate consequences for those officers who've done bad things/brought the service into disrepute, and a transparent plan for getting everything back on track. However it does seem as though each act of police brutality that hits the news just creates more entrenched and polarised positions along political lines. If this keeps happening the situation will just keep getting uglier.

None of this is to say that British police are saints, of course. The UK has its own ugly history of police racism. The London riots of 2011 showed how quickly things could kick off over here. Going back further, the mishandling of the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation brought a whole catalogue of police failure to light - although the public admission of FUBAR helped a bit, I think.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I've said this before on various threads.

If the public are potentially armed, by constitutional right, it isn't going to be any wonder, and one should be neither surprised not shocked, if the police shoot first rather than ask questions etc.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the public are potentially armed, by constitutional right, it isn't going to be any wonder, and one should be neither surprised not shocked, if the police shoot first rather than ask questions etc.
Difficult to explain police behaviour in places like Canada, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries, though, where gun ownership is also very high.

The Finnish police fired a total of six bullets in the whole of 2013. Canadian police have shot and killed 17 people so far this year. 503 people killed by police in the US in the same timeframe.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I would be shocked if you found the American gun ownership demographic to be the same as the likely to be shot by police demographic.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would be shocked if you found the American gun ownership demographic to be the same as the likely to be shot by police demographic.
It's not 'who owns the guns?' that's the significant demographic. It's how likely is it that the average petty-criminal/breaker-of-the-peace/loiterer-with-intent/car-thief will be be armed? If that figure is higher than about 15%, then it's unreasonable to expect the police to take the risk and give potential suspects the benefit of the doubt.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Difficult to explain police behaviour in places like Canada, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries, though, where gun ownership is also very high.

The Finnish police fired a total of six bullets in the whole of 2013. Canadian police have shot and killed 17 people so far this year. 503 people killed by police in the US in the same timeframe.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's not 'who owns the guns?' that's the significant demographic. It's how likely is it that the average petty-criminal/breaker-of-the-peace/loiterer-with-intent/car-thief will be be armed? If that figure is higher than about 15%, then it's unreasonable to expect the police to take the risk and give potential suspects the benefit of the doubt.
And yet police behave in what you consider to be an "unreasonable" manner in other countries with high gun-ownership rates, and despite this unreasonably lax policing Canada has not (yet) descended in to lawless anarchy.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Where prosecuters are political appointments, there may be times when it's politically expedient to sabotage a trial (either through pre-emptive press conferences, leaking important evidence, or simply being totally incompetant in court) and let someone walk free who should have been found guilty.
Mosby was elected prosecutor.

Here is the video of the press conference. It's quite long; if you don't want to watch the whole thing, the article that accompanies the video cites two places that are particularly relevant.

One bad thing about that press conference was that she said the police were guilty of false imprisonment. She said that the knife Freddie was carrying was not illegal according to Maryland law, so the police had no business arresting him. The charge sheet that the police filed did not accuse him of violating Maryland law, but Baltimore law. That was a careless mistake which damages confidence in Mosby.

Moo
 
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the public are potentially armed, by constitutional right, it isn't going to be any wonder, and one should be neither surprised not shocked, if the police shoot first rather than ask questions etc.
Difficult to explain police behaviour in places like Canada, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries, though, where gun ownership is also very high.
I don't know about gun ownership generally, but handguns are restricted weapons in Canada and it's not generally legal for ordinary citizens to carry them around. That probably does have some effect on police expectations of risk in dealing with members of the general public.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would be shocked if you found the American gun ownership demographic to be the same as the likely to be shot by police demographic.
It's not 'who owns the guns?' that's the significant demographic. It's how likely is it that the average petty-criminal/breaker-of-the-peace/loiterer-with-intent/car-thief will be be armed? If that figure is higher than about 15%, then it's unreasonable to expect the police to take the risk and give potential suspects the benefit of the doubt.
But that's not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the majority of the population is white, and whites are more likely to own guns than other races, and yet it seems that white people get benefit of the doubt, and black people get the "shoot first, ask questions later." Here's an example:

A white guy and a black guy try to break into a car

The police cruiser literally cruises right past the white guy breaking into the car. When the police come for the black guy, the officer already has his gun drawn when he approaches the vehicle, and within three seconds, he drops the f-bomb.

And I know policing isn't like other jobs, and this is a minor point, but really, what other profession is allowed to routinely use profanity when dealing with the public? That language alone is incongruous with either service or protection. Can anyone imagine a cashier saying "Swipe or tap your fucking bank card. And have a fucking awesome day!"? Or the school crossing guard saying, "Cross the street now, you little fuckers!"? Many of us try really hard to not swear at work.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Here we go again.

Suicidal man in wheelchair has gun, possibly shoots and injures himself. Man's mother calls police and tells them this. Police show up, shout at man and then shoot and kill him.

That was really helpful. What on earth did this bunch of useless fuckups think they were going to achieve by screaming orders at a suicidal man?

Yet another reminder not to call the police and expect them to help you. They don't know how.


Oh yeah - the man was black.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Many of us try really hard to not swear at work.
I have a friend in building code enforcement, and he tells me that he has to swear in order to get contractors to take him seriously and not expect him to be a pushover. I've also heard something similar about Marine recruits. I could see law enforcement officers coming to the same conclusion. It may not excuse them, but swearing is not necessarily gratuitous.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Rubbish. The police will get taken seriously if they act seriously and professionally. I might, just might (well no, I wouldn't, but you know what i mean) be a bit more sympathetic if I thought for one moment that any member of the public who started effing and blinding at the police would get away with it.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
I'm not saying that they need to swear, just pointing out that individual officers might draw that conclusion for themselves as a practical matter.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
They're supposed to be a disciplined service. Their superiors need to get them under control.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0