|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cops are supposed to err on the side of the protection and safety of the people are arresting. They don't get to deprive people of the right to fair and safe treatment by the state just because simply because they are scared.
|
On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal.
What was he under arrest for?
|
On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal.
And the sentence is dead. Right ?
|
On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal.
Glad to see that resisting a false arrest is a crime. Your unwavering faith in the state, its servants and infallibility of the judicial system really gives police unlimited power of anyone who they even slightly believe a criminal. That simple resistance is enough to warrant punishment, even if the resistance is to an abuse of power.
On July 11 2016 07:28 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. And the sentence is dead. Right ?
The only reason someone would resist arrest is to harm the person arresting them, so that is a justified response.
|
On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal.
Incorrect. A cop is not a judge or jury and as such a suspect is innocent until his day in court.
He can be charged with resisting arrest but he is not a criminal until convicted by a judge or jury.
|
On July 11 2016 07:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun. I was wondering this myself. I know very little about martial arts, but I was intrigued by this video that popped up and wondered about how good it might be. I like the idea in theory as it looks like it would open up more options rather needing to move to deadly force right away. But I am highly ignorant about the sort of combat required for police. + Show Spoiler +
Yeah, i kinda have to backtrack from my statements many pages ago where training wouldn't help. I seriously overestimated US cops training. And Cowboy is not about turning you into a superman, but having a background on how to deal with a vast array of different situations and having enough confidence on doing so for a progressive scalation if needed, instead of just pulling your gun out to get compliance of a defying citizen.
|
United States43733 Posts
On July 11 2016 07:16 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:00 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:37 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:08 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:03 TheYango wrote:I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. This isn't really exclusive to cops as is though. Plenty of other professions are already subject to rigorous, after-the-fact scrutiny of time-sensitive life-or-death decisions they made under pressure. True, but how many of those professionals are dealing with other people? Another problem with these discussions. They act as though the cops are the only actors in the situation and everyone else is just a prop with no say or responsibility. I work in a manufacturing job where we process steel. I am often second-guessed by my bosses, and rightly so, because one mistake can injure or kill a person. However, the only actors in these scenarios would be me. If the steel-beams I'm moving could randomly jump off my forklift and start attacking my coworkers, it would not be fair to judge me the same way as a person who isn't dealing with an actor who makes choices. The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not. You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt. Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse. On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun. The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared. Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused. People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them. If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun. Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it: 1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence. That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems. Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence. Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead. Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion? It was not an execution, so please do not refer it as such. What is this option C you keep referring to? They back off and try to convince him to go peacefully? If he's going to resist arrest why would he suddenly decide to not resist because they asked nicely? That is silly. I am not going to discuss America vs. Other countries because there are way too many factors and it is irrelevant anyway. We are not discussing general scenarios in which we can make up all the parameters. We are discussing a very specific scenario in which the parameters are known. The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. edit: Basically, everyone here keeps saying: "They acted incompetently" but then they don't provide the "competent" scenario, besides saying he shouldn't have been arrested at all, which is not reasonable.
Because you have no interest in option C because it might border too closely to how other countries do things which will get in the way of your American exceptionalism. As a starter to option C though, maybe talking without closing range or sticking a gun in someone's face. The immediate prospect of death tends to provoke fight or flight, rather than rational thinking. If the police officer keeps himself at a safe distance where possible then a confrontation can be deescalated because neither party feels like they're about to die and panics. Also if two police officers cannot resolve a situation, why not bring in more? It'll be cheaper than the inquiry into the killing. There are guns in the UK, in France, in Germany but if the police find a situation they can't handle they retreat until they have the people and tools needed to handle it. Escalation is not a conflict resolution tool unless your desired resolution is the death of one of the two parties. Hell, a suspect who killed a cop who pulled a gun on him and made him feel like he was about to die would have a fair amount of sympathy from me. I wouldn't approve but I'd certainly understand and empathize with his desire to live at that time.
|
On July 11 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Glad to see that resisting a false arrest is a crime. Your unwavering faith in the state, its servants and infallibility of the judicial system really gives police unlimited power of anyone who they even slightly believe a criminal. That simple resistance is enough to warrant punishment, even if the resistance is to an abuse of power.
Resisting false arrest is usually considered a crime. Depends on the situation.
Resistance does not warrant punishment by the officer, but it can lead to a situation where the cops must react. When that resistance escalates to attempting to produce a deadly weapon, the reaction will almost certainly be lethal force. It is not punishment, it is self-defense.
|
On July 11 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:16 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:00 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:37 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:08 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:03 TheYango wrote:I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. This isn't really exclusive to cops as is though. Plenty of other professions are already subject to rigorous, after-the-fact scrutiny of time-sensitive life-or-death decisions they made under pressure. True, but how many of those professionals are dealing with other people? Another problem with these discussions. They act as though the cops are the only actors in the situation and everyone else is just a prop with no say or responsibility. I work in a manufacturing job where we process steel. I am often second-guessed by my bosses, and rightly so, because one mistake can injure or kill a person. However, the only actors in these scenarios would be me. If the steel-beams I'm moving could randomly jump off my forklift and start attacking my coworkers, it would not be fair to judge me the same way as a person who isn't dealing with an actor who makes choices. The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not. You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt. Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse. On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun. The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared. Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused. People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them. If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun. Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it: 1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence. That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems. Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence. Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead. Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion? It was not an execution, so please do not refer it as such. What is this option C you keep referring to? They back off and try to convince him to go peacefully? If he's going to resist arrest why would he suddenly decide to not resist because they asked nicely? That is silly. I am not going to discuss America vs. Other countries because there are way too many factors and it is irrelevant anyway. We are not discussing general scenarios in which we can make up all the parameters. We are discussing a very specific scenario in which the parameters are known. The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. edit: Basically, everyone here keeps saying: "They acted incompetently" but then they don't provide the "competent" scenario, besides saying he shouldn't have been arrested at all, which is not reasonable. Because you have no interest in option C because it might border too closely to how other countries do things which will get in the way of your American exceptionalism. As a starter to option C though, maybe talking without closing range or sticking a gun in someone's face. The immediate prospect of death tends to provoke fight or flight, rather than rational thinking. If the police officer keeps himself at a safe distance where possible then a confrontation can be deescalated because neither party feels like they're about to die and panics. Also if two police officers cannot resolve a situation, why not bring in more? It'll be cheaper than the inquiry into the killing. There are guns in the UK, in France, in Germany but if the police find a situation they can't handle they retreat until they have the people and tools needed to handle it. Escalation is not a conflict resolution tool unless your desired resolution is the death of one of the two parties. Hell, a suspect who killed a cop who pulled a gun on him and made him feel like he was about to die would have a fair amount of sympathy from me. I wouldn't approve but I'd certainly understand and empathize with his desire to live at that time.
I am not going to discuss America vs. other countries.
Their job is not conflict resolution or deescalation. Their job is to enforce the law and make arrests. Sterling has no right to resist arrest, has no right to avoid arrest, and has no right to stall arrest. If the cops wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, they are within their rights to do so (though they should probably not do so). But they are under no obligation to wait until Sterling feels ready to be arrested.
If you want to redefine the purpose of a police force to be conflict-negotiators and crisis de-escalators than you will have to do that before you expect them to be that. As of now, they are police officers tasked with enforcing the law.
edit: also, I am pretty sure they did not "stick a gun in his face".
|
On July 11 2016 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Incorrect. A cop is not a judge or jury and as such a suspect is innocent until his day in court. He can be charged with resisting arrest but he is not a criminal until convicted by a judge or jury.
You live in fantasy land if you actually, truly believe that is how it works. That may be how it's written down but in practise you are 100% guilty until proven innocent.
|
If he was going for the gun I sincerely doubt it was to shoot the cops, far more likely he was trying to avoid the consequences of being in possession of the gun he felt was necessary to protect his life in the same streets that terrify cops so.
|
On July 11 2016 07:39 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Glad to see that resisting a false arrest is a crime. Your unwavering faith in the state, its servants and infallibility of the judicial system really gives police unlimited power of anyone who they even slightly believe a criminal. That simple resistance is enough to warrant punishment, even if the resistance is to an abuse of power. Resisting false arrest is usually considered a crime. Depends on the situation. Resistance does not warrant punishment by the officer, but it can lead to a situation where the cops must react. When that resistance escalates to attempting to produce a deadly weapon, the reaction will almost certainly be lethal force. It is not punishment, it is self-defense.
So any officer abusing power or doing their job improperly is justified in defending themselves with lethal force if that abuse/impropriety results in them being scared for their life. Basically police are justified in the use of lethal force, even if their actions could have avoided the situation that lead to the use of lethal force. As long as the officer can rationalize the use of force, it is justified.
On July 11 2016 07:43 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Incorrect. A cop is not a judge or jury and as such a suspect is innocent until his day in court. He can be charged with resisting arrest but he is not a criminal until convicted by a judge or jury. You live in fantasy land if you actually, truly believe that is how it works. That may be how it's written down but in practise you are 100% guilty until proven innocent.
For the purposes of this discussion, the person is only a criminal after trial. They are simply accused of a crime at the time of arrest.
Edit: LoL, Cowboy doesn't want to discuss US law enforcement vs law enforcement in other countries with different rules. That really limits the discussion down to a place where he doesn't have to deal with any uncomfortable realities
|
On July 11 2016 07:43 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:16 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:00 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:37 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:08 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:03 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
This isn't really exclusive to cops as is though. Plenty of other professions are already subject to rigorous, after-the-fact scrutiny of time-sensitive life-or-death decisions they made under pressure. True, but how many of those professionals are dealing with other people? Another problem with these discussions. They act as though the cops are the only actors in the situation and everyone else is just a prop with no say or responsibility. I work in a manufacturing job where we process steel. I am often second-guessed by my bosses, and rightly so, because one mistake can injure or kill a person. However, the only actors in these scenarios would be me. If the steel-beams I'm moving could randomly jump off my forklift and start attacking my coworkers, it would not be fair to judge me the same way as a person who isn't dealing with an actor who makes choices. The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not. You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt. Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse. On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun. The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared. Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused. People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them. If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun. Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it: 1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence. That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems. Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence. Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead. Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion? It was not an execution, so please do not refer it as such. What is this option C you keep referring to? They back off and try to convince him to go peacefully? If he's going to resist arrest why would he suddenly decide to not resist because they asked nicely? That is silly. I am not going to discuss America vs. Other countries because there are way too many factors and it is irrelevant anyway. We are not discussing general scenarios in which we can make up all the parameters. We are discussing a very specific scenario in which the parameters are known. The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. edit: Basically, everyone here keeps saying: "They acted incompetently" but then they don't provide the "competent" scenario, besides saying he shouldn't have been arrested at all, which is not reasonable. Because you have no interest in option C because it might border too closely to how other countries do things which will get in the way of your American exceptionalism. As a starter to option C though, maybe talking without closing range or sticking a gun in someone's face. The immediate prospect of death tends to provoke fight or flight, rather than rational thinking. If the police officer keeps himself at a safe distance where possible then a confrontation can be deescalated because neither party feels like they're about to die and panics. Also if two police officers cannot resolve a situation, why not bring in more? It'll be cheaper than the inquiry into the killing. There are guns in the UK, in France, in Germany but if the police find a situation they can't handle they retreat until they have the people and tools needed to handle it. Escalation is not a conflict resolution tool unless your desired resolution is the death of one of the two parties. Hell, a suspect who killed a cop who pulled a gun on him and made him feel like he was about to die would have a fair amount of sympathy from me. I wouldn't approve but I'd certainly understand and empathize with his desire to live at that time. I am not going to discuss America vs. other countries.Their job is not conflict resolution or deescalation. Their job is to enforce the law and make arrests. Sterling has no right to resist arrest, has no right to avoid arrest, and has no right to stall arrest. If the cops wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, they are within their rights to do so (though they should probably not do so). But they are under no obligation to wait until Sterling feels ready to be arrested. If you want to redefine the purpose of a police force to be conflict-negotiators and crisis de-escalators than you will have to do that before you expect them to be that. As of now, they are police officers tasked with enforcing the law. edit: also, I am pretty sure they did not "stick a gun in his face".
The part that really bothers me about this is that police can do whatever they want. If a guy is just walking down the street, police can try and put him in cuffs, and if he resists that (because you probably would if you felt unjustly arrested), they could simply escalate it into a beating. Then while on the ground they could shoot you and say you tried to reach for a gun in your pocket (regardless of whether you had a gun).
It puts too much power in the police's hands. They decide if something's dangerous, then they decide if you're resisting arrest, then they decide if you need to be put down.
|
On July 11 2016 07:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:39 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Glad to see that resisting a false arrest is a crime. Your unwavering faith in the state, its servants and infallibility of the judicial system really gives police unlimited power of anyone who they even slightly believe a criminal. That simple resistance is enough to warrant punishment, even if the resistance is to an abuse of power. Resisting false arrest is usually considered a crime. Depends on the situation. Resistance does not warrant punishment by the officer, but it can lead to a situation where the cops must react. When that resistance escalates to attempting to produce a deadly weapon, the reaction will almost certainly be lethal force. It is not punishment, it is self-defense. So any officer abusing power or doing their job improperly is justified in defending themselves with lethal force if that abuse/impropriety results in them being scared for their life. Basically police are justified in the use of lethal force, even if their actions could have avoided the situation that lead to the use of lethal force. As long as the officer can rationalize the use of force, it is justified.
The law is shaky on this. You have the right to defend yourself from an officer, but you do not have the right to resist arrest, even if you are innocent. The cops job is not to determine guilt or innocence.
The rule of thumb is: do not resist arrest. It will almost certainly be considered a crime (rightly so) even if you are not guilty of the original crime. It could lead to conflict escalation, and usually won't result in the officer being the dead or hurt one.
A very long history of legal precedence establishes the right of the cops to arrest you. It has never established your right to resist arrest, or to avoid arrest. And there is no legal precedent which requires cops to wait for you to calm down before they make an arrest, nor should there be, nor will there be.
|
On July 11 2016 07:53 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:43 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:16 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On July 11 2016 07:00 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:37 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 06:08 Cowboy24 wrote:
[quote]
True, but how many of those professionals are dealing with other people?
Another problem with these discussions. They act as though the cops are the only actors in the situation and everyone else is just a prop with no say or responsibility.
I work in a manufacturing job where we process steel. I am often second-guessed by my bosses, and rightly so, because one mistake can injure or kill a person. However, the only actors in these scenarios would be me. If the steel-beams I'm moving could randomly jump off my forklift and start attacking my coworkers, it would not be fair to judge me the same way as a person who isn't dealing with an actor who makes choices.
The police are assumed to use lethal force appropriately and the victim is expected to prove they did not. You will always be expected to prove a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. Our legal system does not allow for assumptions of guilt, but it is built on assumptions of non-guilt. Right, so the officer should be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lethal force was the only option. The current standard of proof for them is that "they got scared and feared for their life," which is a very low bar. Even soldiers in war zones can't use that excuse. On July 11 2016 06:44 Godwrath wrote:
I am showing some serious self-restraint to not make some Judge Dredd memes. Then i repeat to myself, you are no American, you don't get it, and move on.
Do american cops learn martial arts or atleast encouraged to do so ? Watching Alton's dead i really have a hard time understand how they weren't prepared to properly inmovilize him. I have a real hard time watching that video to understand how the police felt like he had to resort to his gun. The existence of the gun scared them. Not that he drew it, or had control over it. Just that it existed and it scared them, so they killed him. Of course, they fucked when they tried to arrest them, but that no longer matters because they got scared. Not really, the officer is the accused in this scenario. He should be given the same benefit of the doubt as any other accused. People need to realize that being "trained in martial arts" is not going to turn you into a super-man. An adult man is very difficult to subdue without using overwhelming force. The kind of force (choke-holds, hitting with batons, etc.) that you would all decry and forbid them. If you don't believe me, go find some college wrestlers and try to have 2 of them prevent you from moving at all. They are trained in ground-control and it would still be difficult for them to take down a grown man, and then completely incapacitate him to where he cannot reach into his pocket and draw a gun. Also, the idea that they shouldn't have arrested him at all because then he might resist and they might have to kill him is absurd, think about it: 1) Guy is breaking the law. 2) Cops try to arrest him. 3) He threatens violence if they arrest him. 4) They can no longer arrest him because then he will become violent. 5) No one is ever arrested because all it takes to stop an arrest is threaten violence. That is silly, and of course that will never be the standard in this country. Arguing for it is arguing for fantasy-land solutions to real problems. Alton Sterling chose his path. This is all on his head. For Castile, we will have to wait and see what the investigation turns up. edit: The existence of guns scares liberals all the time. Not that the person is using them, but that people have them. I don't understand this total hypocrisy where we are supposed to think guns are this HORRIBLE thing that must be removed from the general populace, but cops shouldn't react to their presence. Do you realize how quickly Sterling could have killed those cops, if he had been allowed to draw that gun? Instantly. The moment the gun is drawn, it is too late. Those cops are already dead. Okay so in your numbered scenario you seem to be arguing that by point 4 literally the only two possible outcomes after he refuses to go peacefully are an execution or that he goes free. This is not true in other countries and in many of them a police officer who couldn't think of any third way out of that scenario would be viewed as extremely incompetent. Why is it that American police officers are so incompetent in your opinion? It was not an execution, so please do not refer it as such. What is this option C you keep referring to? They back off and try to convince him to go peacefully? If he's going to resist arrest why would he suddenly decide to not resist because they asked nicely? That is silly. I am not going to discuss America vs. Other countries because there are way too many factors and it is irrelevant anyway. We are not discussing general scenarios in which we can make up all the parameters. We are discussing a very specific scenario in which the parameters are known. The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. edit: Basically, everyone here keeps saying: "They acted incompetently" but then they don't provide the "competent" scenario, besides saying he shouldn't have been arrested at all, which is not reasonable. Because you have no interest in option C because it might border too closely to how other countries do things which will get in the way of your American exceptionalism. As a starter to option C though, maybe talking without closing range or sticking a gun in someone's face. The immediate prospect of death tends to provoke fight or flight, rather than rational thinking. If the police officer keeps himself at a safe distance where possible then a confrontation can be deescalated because neither party feels like they're about to die and panics. Also if two police officers cannot resolve a situation, why not bring in more? It'll be cheaper than the inquiry into the killing. There are guns in the UK, in France, in Germany but if the police find a situation they can't handle they retreat until they have the people and tools needed to handle it. Escalation is not a conflict resolution tool unless your desired resolution is the death of one of the two parties. Hell, a suspect who killed a cop who pulled a gun on him and made him feel like he was about to die would have a fair amount of sympathy from me. I wouldn't approve but I'd certainly understand and empathize with his desire to live at that time. I am not going to discuss America vs. other countries.Their job is not conflict resolution or deescalation. Their job is to enforce the law and make arrests. Sterling has no right to resist arrest, has no right to avoid arrest, and has no right to stall arrest. If the cops wish to give him the benefit of the doubt, they are within their rights to do so (though they should probably not do so). But they are under no obligation to wait until Sterling feels ready to be arrested. If you want to redefine the purpose of a police force to be conflict-negotiators and crisis de-escalators than you will have to do that before you expect them to be that. As of now, they are police officers tasked with enforcing the law. edit: also, I am pretty sure they did not "stick a gun in his face". The part that really bothers me about this is that police can do whatever they want. If a guy is just walking down the street, police can try and put him in cuffs, and if he resists that (because you probably would if you felt unjustly arrested), they could simply escalate it into a beating. Then while on the ground they could shoot you and say you tried to reach for a gun in your pocket (regardless of whether you had a gun). It puts too much power in the police's hands. They decide if something's dangerous, then they decide if you're resisting arrest, then they decide if you need to be put down.
I would never resist arrest, no matter what was happening. Unless there was a legitimate and immediate fear for my safety, I would be as calm as possible and would let the cops know that I don't blame them for doing their job. I can deal with the trial later. Cops aren't judge or jury, arguing with them and resisting arrest is idiotic.
|
On July 11 2016 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 05:59 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 05:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Has anyone here actually argued AGAINST body-cams on cops?
It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. I like them because they can protect the cops. I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. It's the same thing with allowing the press into combat situations. Sure, you might catch some people doing something they shouldn't be doing, but you will also run the risk of paralyzing your military/cops because they are constantly second-guessing themselves. On a cost-benefit analysis, I think the risk of some cops/military getting away with atrocities is less than the risk of hamstringing cops and military because they are afraid of being judged unfairly (which happens very, very often). So, I would normally say "no" to body-cams, but I think the public desire for them is strong enough to outweigh the obvious and very real problems with an over-analyzed, sensationalist, arm-chair judge society. I didn't really consider that disadvantage. I still consider the pros to outweigh the cons on this significantly. Especially because every single time a black man is shot by cops, the public outroar is that cops are assassinating innocent blacks on a regular basis. Keeping them accountable is a big step towards improving public trust.
That's predicated on the assumption that the general public and BLM in particular are interested in facts and truth as they pertain to each case. Thus far I've seen no indication of any commitment to waiting until the facts come out and acting based on them. We just get media sensationalism followed by protests and riots even in cases like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, where evidence in both cases clearly indicated justifiable homicide. I don't see body cams making a big difference in an environment dominated by emotions and ideologues.
|
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out.
|
On July 11 2016 07:57 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 11 2016 05:59 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 05:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Has anyone here actually argued AGAINST body-cams on cops?
It seems to me like EVERYONE here agrees cops SHOULD HAVE body-cams. I like them because they can protect the cops. I don't like them because they will allow every Tom, Dick, and Sally to second guess the cop from behind a computer screen, after hours of calm deliberation; never thinking about the fact that they are second-guessing a dude who was facing down an armed criminal, under extreme stress, in a very fast-paced situation. It's the same thing with allowing the press into combat situations. Sure, you might catch some people doing something they shouldn't be doing, but you will also run the risk of paralyzing your military/cops because they are constantly second-guessing themselves. On a cost-benefit analysis, I think the risk of some cops/military getting away with atrocities is less than the risk of hamstringing cops and military because they are afraid of being judged unfairly (which happens very, very often). So, I would normally say "no" to body-cams, but I think the public desire for them is strong enough to outweigh the obvious and very real problems with an over-analyzed, sensationalist, arm-chair judge society. I didn't really consider that disadvantage. I still consider the pros to outweigh the cons on this significantly. Especially because every single time a black man is shot by cops, the public outroar is that cops are assassinating innocent blacks on a regular basis. Keeping them accountable is a big step towards improving public trust. That's predicated on the assumption that the general public and BLM in particular are interested in facts and truth as they pertain to each case. Thus far I've seen no indication of any commitment to waiting until the facts come out and acting based on them. We just get media sensationalism followed by protests and riots even in cases like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, where evidence in both cases clearly indicated justifiable homicide. I don't see body cams making a big difference in an environment dominated by emotions and ideologues.
You can discredit them on a case-by-case basis with video evidence.
And yes the MSM is partially to blame for fear-mongering and creating racial tension.
|
On July 11 2016 07:54 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:50 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 07:39 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 07:21 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 11 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:The problem here is with the assumption that cops are supposed to err on the side of protecting the criminal. That is exactly backward. They are supposed to err on the side of protecting their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers. You seem to not understand the basic responsibility of the police? Is that a shitty job? Yeah. But that's the job, because they aren't "criminals" they are suspects when they are interacting with police, particularly when the police have no proof (anyone can call 911 and claim someone pulled a gun on them, think SWATting) a crime was commited. It's this attitude that anyone police interact with is already a criminal that plays a not insignificant part in why the police routinely violate people's constitutional rights. Resisting arrest is a crime. When a person is actively engaged in a crime, they are no longer a "suspect". They are a criminal. Glad to see that resisting a false arrest is a crime. Your unwavering faith in the state, its servants and infallibility of the judicial system really gives police unlimited power of anyone who they even slightly believe a criminal. That simple resistance is enough to warrant punishment, even if the resistance is to an abuse of power. Resisting false arrest is usually considered a crime. Depends on the situation. Resistance does not warrant punishment by the officer, but it can lead to a situation where the cops must react. When that resistance escalates to attempting to produce a deadly weapon, the reaction will almost certainly be lethal force. It is not punishment, it is self-defense. So any officer abusing power or doing their job improperly is justified in defending themselves with lethal force if that abuse/impropriety results in them being scared for their life. Basically police are justified in the use of lethal force, even if their actions could have avoided the situation that lead to the use of lethal force. As long as the officer can rationalize the use of force, it is justified. The law is shaky on this. You have the right to defend yourself from an officer, but you do not have the right to resist arrest, even if you are innocent. The cops job is not to determine guilt or innocence. The rule of thumb is: do not resist arrest. It will almost certainly be considered a crime (rightly so) even if you are not guilty of the original crime. It could lead to conflict escalation, and usually won't result in the officer being the dead or hurt one. A very long history of legal precedence establishes the right of the cops to arrest you. It has never established your right to resist arrest, or to avoid arrest. And there is no legal precedent which requires cops to wait for you to calm down before they make an arrest, nor should there be, nor will there be.
I understand how resisting arrest works. I worked in probation for nearly a year. Which is why I find your in unwavering faith that if people just "don't resist" they won't be hurt, harmed or abused by the police. Or that some blacks don't have reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm during their encounters with police. Because it doesn't take a lot for the cop to say "I feared for my life."
|
On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out.
Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
