US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4877

Heavy scrutiny surrounding officer-involved shootings has some law enforcement leaders rethinking firing at moving cars.

One of those agencies is the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which recently changed its policy on the issue. The LASD is the largest sheriff's dept in the country, with about 10,000 full-time sworn personnel.

NPR member station KPCC in Pasadena has been tracking the use of force by sheriff's deputies as part of an ongoing investigative series called Officer Involved. It found almost every driver or passenger shot by deputies was unarmed.

John Berry was one of these unarmed drivers.

Last summer, Berry sat in his BMW on his home street in Lakewood — a city south of Los Angeles — as sheriff's patrol cars blocked him from driving away.

Seven deputies swarmed the vehicle, as a neighbor recorded the scene on her smart phone, and people called out to "Johnny," urging him to exit the car.

John, a 31-year-old restaurant manager, was in the middle of a schizophrenic episode.

His brother Chris Berry says John wasn't armed and wasn't dangerous. In fact, Chris called deputies for help, perhaps in getting his brother to a psychiatric hospital.

So Chris was shocked when officers pulled out a baton, then Taser.

"They were way too aggressive for someone who doesn't understand what's going on," Chris Berry says.

Suddenly, John's car lurched forward, then back. The deputies declined to comment for this story, but told homicide investigators they were scared they'd be run over. That's why they shot.

Chris Berry says there was no reason to shoot and kill John. His brother suffered from a severe mental illness.

"I've known my brother long enough he didn't mean to hurt anybody. He was terrified," Chris says.

Shoot Or Get Out Of The Way?

John Berry's case raises many issues. Among them is a tactical one that isn't discussed often: Should officers shoot a person if they're afraid of being run over? Or should they just get out of the way?

The Los Angeles Police Department, which serves the city of Los Angeles, has cracked down on the practice and virtually eliminated shooting at moving cars with unarmed occupants from 2010 through 2014, KPCC found.

But the KPCC investigation found Los Angeles County sheriff deputies shot an unarmed passenger or driver in a car at least eight times during the same five-year period because they said they feared being run over.

In most cases, shooting at a moving vehicle doesn't make a lot of sense, says Todd Rogers, an assistant L.A. sheriff.

Rogers says the shootings in KPCC's investigation are justified. But he also agrees with a growing number of law enforcement leaders who say injuring someone behind the wheel can make the situation more dangerous.

"Chances are you are not going to kill the vehicle. You are not going to stop the vehicle. It is still going to be moving forward and everything in its path is going to get hit," he says.

If the driver — the target — is hit, that means an unmanned 3,000-pound vehicle is suddenly tearing down the streets of Los Angeles County.

Add to that the issue of bystanders. In May 2005, L.A. sheriff's deputies unloaded 120 rounds on an unarmed man in a Chevy Tahoe in Compton.

A month later, the L.A. Sheriff's Department wrote a new policy discouraging firing at moving vehicles. But the shootings continued.

"We are probably shooting at moving vehicles too much, because it is not an effective tactic, not because deputies aren't legally justified in doing so," Rogers says.

Legally justified, Rogers says, because deputies are allowed to shoot when they fear for their life.

In two cases KPCC examined, deputies said the driver reached for a gun. But in all other cases, the weapon was the car itself.

In those two cases and the eight in which no gun was found, there were a total of four fatal shootings.

On September 02 2016 04:11 Plansix wrote:
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/480147373/new-policy-in-la-cracks-down-on-problem-of-police-shooting-at-moving-cars



About time. The numbers and just general idiocy in these stories are terrible. If you have a mentally ill family member who could be dangerous to themselves, the police are not an option if you want to assure their safety.

"We are probably shooting at moving vehicles too much, because it is not an effective tactic, not because deputies aren't legally justified in doing so,"

On September 02 2016 04:15 Dan HH wrote:
Shooting at cars driving away, were they trained by TV shows?

On September 02 2016 04:24 a_flayer wrote:
The police here in the Netherlands don't chase cars at all because it is considered far too dangerous. It is incredibly difficult to control what is going to happen and the likelihood that innocents are going to get hurt as a result is too great. Shooting at moving cars just seems absolutely mental for the same reason.

And yeah, I wouldn't call the cops either if I was dealing with a mentally ill person. I'd call an ambulance.

On September 02 2016 02:14 TheYango wrote:

Didn't we already establish a few days ago that biology]major thinks that "offering divisive opinions on complex/sensitive political issues" and "being an asshole to people" are one and the same?


People taking hard line positions and being willing to fight for them isn't what makes me find a poster annoying.

American schoolchildren will be taught greater respect for patriotic values, Donald Trump promised on Thursday, as he followed up his surprise trip to Mexico and key anti-immigration speech by stepping up his appeal to “Americanism”.

The Republican presidential candidate defied expectations that he would soften his stance on the issue on Wednesday night, when he returned to the US from a suprisingly conciliatory joint press conference with the Mexican president only to give a fiery speech vowing to deport millions of undocumented immigrants to a crowd in Arizona.

On Thursday morning he kept up this populist tone, telling an enthusiastic audience at the American Legion convention in Cincinnati: “We will stop apologising for America, and we will start celebrating America.”

A Trump administration, he said, would consult with the military veterans’ group to promote “pride and patriotism” in schools – “teaching respect” for the US flag and pledge of allegiance.

“That flag deserves respect, and I will work with American Legion to help to strengthen respect for our flag,” said Trump. “You see what’s happening. It’s very, very sad. And, by the way, we want young Americans to recite the pledge of allegiance.

“One country, under one constitution, saluting one American flag … always saluting,” he added. “In a Trump administration, I plan to work directly with the American Legion to uphold our common values and to help ensure they are taught to America’s children. We want our kids to learn the incredible achievements of America’s history, its institutions and its heroes.”

The call to “advance the cause of Americanism – not globalism” came as Trump reiterated the anti-immigration message at the heart of his campaign, which delighted core supporters and dismayed his few remaining Latino allies, who had expected a tack towards moderation.

Despite a whirlwind visit to Mexico on Wednesday and suggestions of a softening in his approach to the issue, the campaign increasingly seems to be emphasizing nationalism as a tactic to defeat Hillary Clinton in November.

Apple’s European Tax Bill: Time to Pay Up and Play by the Rules

Apple and its allies in the U.S. Treasury and Congress would have you believe that this week’s ruling by the European Commission that the company must pay some $14.5 billion in taxes owed to Ireland and other governments is an assault on one of America’s most innovative and successful companies.

In fact, the case is not really about Apple at all – it is about Ireland and other governments, both national and local, that are willing and eager to offer whatever tax breaks and other subsidies are needed to attract corporate investment. That is the very definition of a global “race to the bottom.” and it is a big problem not just for Europe but for the United States and the world. The U.S. government should be standing with Europe on this issue, not against it.

On September 02 2016 04:25 Plansix wrote:
When did I say it was about shooting the wrong people? I’m talking about trigger happy cops who default to using their gun when anything doesn’t do exactly what they say. Cars or people.

Legally justified means very little to me in these discussions. Slavery was legal. Denying women the right to vote was legal.



You call 911 for both and they will send whatever they think is necessary.

On September 02 2016 04:36 a_flayer wrote:

I'm sure you can steer the conversation in the way of medical assistance. "I got a mentally ill person here, I don't think he's a danger to others but can you send a doctor or something, I'm worried for his health." Keep emphasizing health and such and I'd be willing to bet they're much less likely to send a bunch of guns to deal with the situation at hand. Of course they might just follow some sort of really basic script that says mental issues -> send in the troops. Maybe that's something that can be looked at as well.

Several major Latino surrogates for Donald Trump are reconsidering their support for him following the Republican nominee’s hardline speech on immigration Wednesday night.

Jacob Monty, a member of Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council, quickly resigned after the speech. Another member, Ramiro Pena, a Texas pastor, said Trump's speech likely cost him the election and said he'd have to reconsider being part of a "scam." And Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said in an interview that he is “inclined” to pull his support.

“I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump when I believed he was going to address the immigration problem realistically and compassionately,” said Monty, a Houston attorney who has aggressively made the Latino case for Trump. “What I heard today was not realistic and not compassionate.”

He withdrew from the board following Trump’s speech in Phoenix, which was heavy on calls for border security and emphasized that all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Pena delivered a harsh condemnation in an email to senior Trump and Republican National Committee leaders, obtained by POLITICO.

"I am so sorry but I believe Mr. Trump lost the election tonight," said Pena, a pastor at Waco's Christ the King Church. "The 'National Hispanic Advisory Council' seems to be simply for optics and I do not have the time or energy for a scam."

Pena addressed his message to Jennifer Korn, the RNC's national director for Hispanic Initiatives, along with Karen Giorno and Alan Cobb, both senior Trump advisers. Helen Aguirre Ferre and Lourdes Aguirre, both RNC Hispanic outreach officials, were copied as well.

"I will pray over the next couple of days but it is difficult to [imagine] how I can continue to associate with the Trump campaign," he wrote. "I owe my national audience an explanation."

On September 01 2016 23:30 xDaunt wrote:
Even The Weekly Standard has been forced to say nice things about Trump when commenting on his trip to Mexico:



Source.

But man, that parting shot at the end, haha.