|
Quote:
While I agree with you for the most part in your earlier statement about sticking up for yourself, I think here's where you either a) Should have offered more information. You didn't have to say "employee lost his job" but how about "dropping off an employee at his house because he is a good employee" b) if you didn't want to do that - you should have pressed things further and gotten the restitution for the gun and the damage to the car I sympathize though, that definitely sucks. |
Quote:
Yes, you were quite within your rights to play it the way you did, or you could have told the truth and who knows, maybe it would have played differently? Of course, it may also have been he didn't believe you and it would have been exactly the same, but generally telling the truth in situations is the best way forward: to the officer it would have looked like you were being evasive, which = suspicious. No excuse for failing to hand back your property though, that's poor. |
Quote:
This is a fantastic post. Every little part of it. Completely agree with when you talk about when the police try to work with people rather than coming in like hardasses more good gets done. It allows people to take ownership of issues rather than feeling its being put on them by jackasses (such as in the case of drunk driving or loud music at parties). |
Quote:
If I was chief in a department in a place like Ferguson, I'd consider doing something like that by choice. Inform someone of their rights, and also that the entire encounter is being recorded (audio or video) for everybody's protection. You'd have to keep it very brief, to avoid risk of unconstitutionally extending a stop (I can see the argument that the warnings are just a way to stall before the drug dog gets there). But I'd be happy to go down in flames on an argument like that, it'd be great for PR in the community and the cost of drugs in someone's trunk. |
Quote:
How about. "I was dropping off an employee." |
Not answering questions you don't legally have to answer is not grounds to arrest you on a bogus charge. The cop should have lost his job in that case but because you really can't lose your job as a cop the police department continues to employ an incompetent person.
It's just mind-boggling that people make excuses for incompetence so often when it comes to the police. Like it's impossible for taxpayers to setup a system where they can fire the poor performing employees they pay for. |
Quote:
That's a good perspective and I think it gives you good insight to what officers do. Because the role and appropriate mindset is similar. Suspects give officers justification to use some kind of force all the time. It's better to find other ways to resolve the issue though, and most of the time, they do. But I'm sure there are excellent bouncers in the united states who have occasionally had to use force. There are probably also good bouncers who fucked up in a high-stress situations. There are also terrible bouncers who look for conflict. |
Quote:
CU's example is a good case of how a revenue-maximizing police department, when faced with the joint problems of only having X number of man-hours to make stops or arrests and having some proportion of fines/citations/charges end up being successfully appealed, would rationally consider it wiser to target a group of individuals who are less likely to have the resources to fight the charges. Something like that offers enough plausible deniability to claim that police officers aren't racist as a whole, but the net effect on the community is still the same and like you mention, ends up creating a cycle of self-fulfilling prophesies. |
Quote:
"Dropping off an employee" would have been a lie and opened me up to further criminal charges. Stating he had been terminated could have opened me up to a civil suit. Regarding the damage, in SC there is no restitution..they get carte blanche "during a lawful arrests" to do whatever they want. As the judge told us in court "Sir I sympathize with your position but if he would have felt it nevessary to bust the windows out of your car to arrest you, even if you are found not guilty, so long as the action was justifiable it is your responsibility to repair the vehicle." |
Quote:
Here is my big issue. Innocent until proven guilty. Now my situation was different than the Ferguson one because Michael Brown was guilty of Jaywalking at the time of his confrontation. I did nothing wrong. I will however bet you that at some point in his life Michael Brown had been harassed for doing nothing wrong. That doenst excuse his actions that night but I hope it offers some perspective. |
Quote:
Oh, because he had been terminated? Alright. How about "Dropping off someone who used to be an employee of mine" if you want to be 100% truthful. "He doesn't have a car. He needed a ride." I mean - it sounds like the cop would have probably given you a hard time anyways based on the neighborhood and all, but who knows. Just curious - why would stating he had been let go open you up to a civil suit? Is that some funky SC law or something? The damage to, and theft of, your property though is just inexcusable. And that's a fucked up law given that there was no real basis for the arrest. I could understand it if the charges stuck and all, but that's just messed up IMO. |
Quote:
I'm sorry that's not the point. Innocent until proven guilty is what applies in a court of law. Police have to have reasonable grounds (just cause) to stop someone. If 'innocent until proven guilty' is the premise for everything they wouldn't be able to stop and question anyone unless they were proven to be guilty beforehand, which means no-one would be stopped unless physically caught in the act, so policing would become 100% reactive rather than having any prevention aspect at all. From the cops POV it seems he saw a well to do white bloke driving a nice car in a poor black area known for drug dealing. When stopped the person driving was evasive and could provide no good reason for being in the area. Seems suspicious to me, and worthy of further investigation. Yes is sucks a bit when you are the person stopped and inconvenienced, but in the bigger picture if they didn't investigate potentially suspicious behaviour society would be a lot worse. As before, he may have been a dick, and they were definitely wrong to not return all of your stuff, but I don't have a problem with them stopping you, or for detaining you following your reaction to being stopped, or for all charges being dropped when you no doubt provided further information after being arrested. Innocent until proven guilty is a different attitude to 'nothing to hide' - the former is defensive, the latter open, and the latter is more likely, but not guaranteed if the cop was a tool, to get a reasonable attitude in return |
|
Quote:
I have a problem with it. There was NO PROBABLE CAUSE to make an arrest. I would argue that the officer didn't even have reasonable suspicion, which is what is needed to pull him over. But even if he did, that's not enough for an arrest. Refusing to answer the questions is not probable cause and is not grounds for an arrest. Being white in a black neighborhood is not probable cause. Having a rich car in a poor neighborhood is not probable cause. Essentially you're justifying arresting people over their skin color just because you think they don't belong. That's not just bad policy, that's illegal. Maybe arresting people for their skin color is legal in England, but that's not the law in the USA. |
Quote:
FWIW, South Carolina courts (I'm taking a guess that might have been where this occurred, could be wrong) have consistently, and rather forcefully imo, upheld the right of police to search based on reasonable suspicion. And the threshold for "reasonable" is relatively low IMO. State v. Burgess :: 2011 :: South Carolina Court of Appeals Decisions :: South Carolina Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia Illegal Search and Seizure | Criminal Lawyer | Rock Hill | Fort Mill Now the arrest on that charge as phrased here, darned if I can find that charge in SC, but the search seems almost certain to be well within prevailing law. |
Quote:
Different facts - the case you cited has the jeep around the back of a building, the occupants weren't eating and there was an obvious hand off between the passengers of different cars. Those aren't remotely the actions described in the story above. The other case you cite has the suspect fleeing from police. Again, that's an entirely different situation. In this case you have a simple case of "driving while white". That's not reasonable suspicion. But let's argue the police had reasonable suspicion. That's a far cry from probable cause to arrest him and in the above case there was ZERO probable cause. In short, the above action was illegal and wrong and he probably should have sued the police department for it. Often times, a suit is the only way to force officers to follow the law as their insurance companies put pressure on them to stop overstepping their boundaries. By the way, if the officer had done nothing wrong then he wouldn't have been reprimanded and forced to apologize, would he? After all, the union wouldn't have allowed an officer to take heat for doing nothing wrong, would they? |
This whole thing is sad. I think the value of black life is not worth much anymore.
:( |
There definitely was no probable cause, and based on the way the officer behaved, I don't believe there was reasonable suspicion either. But, just for fun, it is possible to get reasonable suspicion with a lot of little things added up. Again, I don't believe any of this happened here, but if CU Tiger's employee lived at a drug house, and he stopped in front of it, and they talked for a while outside, and CU reached for something the car, and maybe the employee left, came back, whatever, and the officer was familiar with the employee because he had done parole checks at that house, then, things can add up. A lot of places also have really stupid laws about how long you have to activate your turn signal. It's 5 seconds where I am, and nobody does that. Still, it's cause for a stop.
Even then, the stop can only last as long as to confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion. If you pull someone over and nothing's amiss, that's it. You can't even call for a drug dog and wait for it, that would be an illegal extension of the stop. But if you had a drug dog with you, or if one showed up while you were lawfully doing a license check, then you could run the drug dog around the car, since that doesn't count as a search. That's how drugs are found most of the time, in my jurisdiction. |
Quote:
Reasonability is based in part around the experience of the officers involved (notice how heavily that was cited in the SC Supremes ruling). Given the description of the circumstances I honestly believe any reasonable person, much less one with law enforcement experience, would have found the scene "suspicious". I'm hard pressed to imagine any court in SC would have ruled differently on the search / questioning. Quote:
I attempted to note in my previous post that I couldn't defend the arrest based on what we know here since I couldn't even find the applicable statute that allows the charge. Maybe I didn't note that clearly enough. |
Quote:
It is when he's killed by an officer, the whole country stops. When blacks kill blacks, yes, people seem to expect that and nobody cares. |
Kind of an interesting take on officer training and how it can be improved:
Why did Ferguson cop need 6 bullets? (Opinion) - CNN.com "They are trained as soldiers and expected to perform as social workers at least 90% of the time. And then in a split of a second, they have to be soldiers again. It's quite a trick." I don't know what the answer to that would be. Maybe the police role could be split into two jobs and each side could focus on one aspect. There would still be overlap though. I've tried to emphasize the social work-side of things in my own interactions with officers. |
Gotta love these Ferguson cops. This is Officer Go Fuck Yourself, so named because they won't name their cops and this seems to be his favorite phrase, telling the media that he's going to "fucking kill them".
#OfficerGoFuckYourself Threatens to Kill Ferguson Livestreamers - YouTube Officer points gun at me and other media on W. Florissant #ferguson - YouTube How the fuck is this guy not in jail for making terrorist threats and assault with a deadly weapon? What the hell kind of training did he get to point a loaded assault rife at multiple people? Sadly, this isn't the exception for police behavior in poor minority communities. |
Oh, and the dozen witnesses to the shooting supporting the police version?
Complete Bullshit Christine Byers has been on FMLA leave since March, hasn't been at the P-D offices in that time and is in no way working any story related to Ferguson or Michael Brown. Today she tweeted a complete retraction of this, as did the newspaper's editor in chief, who said the information in any event "Didn't meet the standards for print in our newspaper." In other words--she made this up. |
Quote:
Neither is violent criminal behavior ... but that seems to be a-ok with a lot of folks. At most what do we really have here? A dead criminal. All of this? Over that? Seriously? We have lost our f'n minds in this country. |
Quote:
|
I mean, I'm no lawyer.
|
|
Except that's not at all what likely happened, and you know that.
|
Quote:
Black People Are Not Ignoring 'Black on Black' Crime - The Atlantic |
This sounds like a real fucked up town where they rely on over-policing in order to raise revenues. And keep in mind this is NEWSWEEK, not some left-wing online blog or something.
http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-pro...hooting-264744 “Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of 2,635,400,” according to the ArchCity Defenders report. And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, “or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.” Exacerbating the problem, the report says, are "a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts." A Ferguson court employee reported, for example, that “the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defend net arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.” |
Quote:
There are great people who are doing more than complaining on message boards, and who are actually doing things to try to change the situations in these communities. I should have mentioned them. I wish them and their success stories got more media and recognition. |
Quote:
Psst ... cigars. |
Quote:
I'd say it isn't the exception in any community. It's one of the only professions where it is almost impossible to be fired. There is no profession I can think of where you could speak like that to your customers and retain a job. |
Quote:
Jon is being Jon and we know what we're going to get from him. I just don't get the rhetoric on this. People have lost their minds. People are having trouble reading. It's kind of scary. When this kind of thing happens with non-police defendants, when we get this kind of mob mentality that makes assumptions and exaggerates what we know - we all recognize and see how scary that is. Shooting him for jaywalking? I don't think even Brown's friend's account is that the officer saw him jaywalking and killed him for committing that offense. I can't be the only one that thinks this, I just think there's this idea that if you're on the right side, you can exaggerate and make assumptions if those lead to justice in the end. Which is that wild west mob mentality. Blackadar has been very vocal about the Ferguson police, and he theorized a situation earlier that I think is very plausible and at least borders on criminal. It was not that this officer killed this guy because he was jaywalking. So, there's a fundamental disagreement between Blacklader and Subby on this. But that disagreement will never come up here, because they're on the same side against the real enemy, this officer. So we just go with it. That becomes the new truth. That's how you get assumptions and unjust convictions. When this happens to black defendants, and it does, we recognize that injustice. Nobody sees even the possibility of it here. Somebody must be strung up. The facts, what intent can be proven, don't matter at all. There must be justice, which means someone must be strung up. Edit: Those on the other side can be guilty of the same thing here. There were initial reports that the officer was black, and then that this reporter claimed sources told her that 12 witness agreed with the officer. Some people were a little too excited about those stories that sure smelled like bullshit. (There's one floating around now that Brown's friend has changed his story and supports the officer's version - I'd be shocked if that's not made-up bullshit as well). Once you're locked into a side on this, none of the evidence matters. If it supports your side, it's huge, if it doesn't, it's made-up or flawed. That's a dangerous place to be, that's how injustice happens. |
Quote:
And the main eyewitness (Brown's friend) has a lengthy criminal record that includes filing a false police report. Has already had his version of events discredited by the autopsy the family commissioned. And conveniently failed to mention in all his interviews that him and his friend were knocking up a convenient store an hour earlier. There is zero chance they can put him on a stand in a trial. He would be eviscerated by a competent defense. |
Quote:
So basically what you have is a police force that largely doesn't reside in the town, drawing salaries from money made by shaking down the town's residents? |
Quote:
Which wasn't known by the officer at the time :p And even still - shooting someone six times for a unarmed robbery (and that's if he didn't pay for them - which the longer video leave the question open about in some peoples' minds). :p |
The officer claimed he was being charged by the offender after a physical confrontation in the car. He wasn't shot for cigars or for jaywalking. Now whether you believe his version of events is a different matter, but it's disingenuous to state he shot Brown over cigars or jaywalking.
|
Quote:
Seems to be that way I suppose. It's really not that unusual I guess, but it's certainly an issue. |
Quote:
And no one here has said he was shot for jaywalking. Well, at least I didn't. He was stopped for jaywalking. Now how does that escalate into an unarmed boy/man getting shot 6 times at range? That's what I want to know. Quote:
Yep, and I've tried to back up my assertions with facts and videos. Quote:
And this is where you go off the rails. Actually, you'll notice I've attacked the Ferguson police department for the actions, abuse and lies. I've asked hard questions about the circumstances around this case. However, I have yet to attack the officer himself or his personal motives. THIS COP isn't the enemy. He may be guilty of a crime - that may be very well likely - but the enemy is the entire system of police militarization, the thin blue line and their overreactions to situations. Quote:
Bollocks. "We recognize that injustice"? Maybe, in passing, when statistics are presented that are so irrefutable that people can't ignore them anymore or yet another young kid dies by some overaggressive, undertrained or racist cop because the system allowed it to happen. Recognizing that injustice and doing NOTHING doesn't do a damn thing. You know what justice is? It's recognizing the conditions that allows this to happen repeatedly and FIXING them. The police are not a paramilitary force. There is no reason why SWAT incursions have increased 1400% in the last 20 years. It's time to go back to "protect and serve", not "arm and intimidate". It's actually doing something about the huge disparity in sentencing between white and black defendants for the same crime. That's justice...or at least the start of it. EDITED TO REMOVE HYPERBOLE. |
Quote:
I read that as a direct response to Jon's "He's a dead criminal. So what?" post and not an actual belief of what happened. |
Quote:
I'm not sure where you're going with this, since this has nothing to do with my post. By the way, his version of the shooting isn't discredited by the autopsy. The examiner said that it is possible that one or more of the the gunshots to the arms could have come from behind. I don't think you can put him up on the stand as your primary witness but he could certainly reinforce other testimony as to the nature of the shooting: Quote:
Did Michael Brown have his 'hands up' when killed by police? Private autopsy can't say : News Independent Autopsy Finds 'No Signs of Struggle' in Michael Brown Death - The Wire |
Thanks for pointing that out. So the live tweeter isn't discredited either.
|
Quote:
Subby said he was shot for jaywalking. That was the whole point of my response. You definitely did not say that, and that was part of that point. You've made some very good points. Your theory posted earlier was done without blind emotion and was pretty plausible. But then you went off the rails. You keep saying how you're so objective and how you don't look at all police as the enemy and then you say stuff like this. Quote:
So you have already made up your mind. And it will be covered up because that "always happens". Good to know we can close the book on that here. And the prosecutions of officers I've been involved with must have been false memories or something. I feel like you're expressing a lot of blanket anger about police generally, and maybe it's totally separate to the conversation about what happened in this individual case. I love to talk about ways to improve police departments. I believe I actually have improved police departments, have improved police officers, have improved the criminal justice system and made it more fair and more ethical in my little pond. But I feel like I'm still part of your target. And I feel like I can't really even have those conversations here because people are so hostile. I asked somebody earlier about what they would do to improve things, because I was sure we'd do the exact same things, and have actually already worked towards doing similar things. I don't think there was a response. I think people just enjoy ranting. It gives them a feeling of power they feel they've lost. I bet you and I would also agree, a lot, on things that could be done to improve situations. The rhetoric is just so different. You come to it with anger and blame and hostility and blanket attacks. How can I even productively respond? It's hard to not just be defensive, especially when you have all the "he was shot for jaywalking" stuff going around. People like that are going to think everything I post is bullshit anyway. People like that don't want ethical officers. There's no bucket in their head that such a thing can even exist. They just want an enemy. When you assume bad things about officers as a group, then the good officers are invalidated, they don't matter. When you take those same assumptions and apply them to a criminal case, things get scary. It's very similar to the assumptions that cause so many unjust convictions of black defendants. When there's blanks in a criminal case, biased jurors will just fill in those blanks with their assumptions of whatever group the defendant belongs to. That's happening in this thread to an amazing extent. |
Quote:
And in that he's wrong. But note I don't see this particular officer as the enemy. Quote:
Excuse my hyperbole. That happens a LOT. You know it and I know it. And even if he does go to trial, it'll get moved to a lily white jurisdiction where he'll be acquitted because of the cultural differences. And even if he does get sentenced, he'll get out quick if he serves time at all. Look at Johannes Mehserle - a cold-blooded execution caught on camera and he ultimately served what, one year? And the family of Oscar Grant wasn't even notified of the parole hearing? Why would anyone have faith in the criminal justice system? The cops close ranks, the DA doesn't want to piss off the cops, most of the judges are former DAs and it's easy enough to sit a jury of 12 white, middle-class people most of whom don't have the slightest idea what happens out there and you know what? They really don't care. It doesn't impact them. The cops keep the poor, drug-crazed, gang bangers away and that's all they know or care about. How it's done doesn't matter. The system is broken. As for making suggestions, I did about 4 pages ago. All police officers should have to wear a body cam and by law the footage must be kept (in short, no mysterious disappearances of the video). In the jurisdiction I mentioned, use of force went down by 2/3rds and complaints went down 80%. Put 'em on camera is the fastest and most effective way to curb abuse AND reduce false complaints. Mind you, it's not I hate cops. I've said that a number of times. I remember having to testify (for the prosecution) in trial of the death of a SLED cop back in the early 90s and I didn't like that either. I still remember his name - Sgt. Harrison. |
When did hispanics and native americans become white? Is this a recent development?
|
Quote:
That's why productive conversation here is ultimately impossible. And why productive improvement in the system is ultimately impossible. Because you've already made up your mind. Of course bad things happen, unethical things happen. But let's assume, there's some other hypothetical situation where an officer justifiably uses force. Let's assume that ethical police and ethical prosecutors review the case, and finds the force was justifiable. Doesn't matter to you. Because bad things happen, and because we shouldn't have faith in the criminal justice system generally, you, and the similar-minded people of this thread will believe that those ethical police and ethical prosecutors are actually evil and unethical. Because of what other people in that group have done. So there's no point. Ethical police and ethical prosecutors can not exist in your world, in your mindset. They're automatically unethical, because hey, look what happened in this other case. |
Dola, Johannes Mehserle - those unethical and racist prosecutors tried him for murder! The jury came back with the lesser included of voluntary manslaughter. I suppose you assume they rigged the case or something and lost it on purpose. So even hypothetically, if you go after a police officer for murder charges, it doesn't matter, once you're locked into that mindset. The good prosecutors are the same as the bad, once you make that assumption that they're all the same and the system is rigged, or at the very least, we should assume they're unethical because they're part of a broken system.
And whatever happened there shouldn't have any impact on what happens to Officer Wilson. In any other context, with any other kind of defendant, you'd see how inappropriate that is to fill in the blanks in that way. Here, wherever there's blanks, you will fill them with assumptions based on your dislike of the group, supported by examples of others in the group doing bad things. Racist jurors do this all the time. Those racists don't necessarily "hate all black people". But if there's a grey area, any doubt, they're fill in the blanks with their beliefs about how black people generally act. That's terrible, but in the context of police, you're actually advocating for that approach. In a message board, that doesn't matter too much, I know that's a poster that's not going to respect me, but whatever. In a criminal trial, even a civil trial, the stakes are much higher, and that mindset is wrong. |
Mehserle also was convicted of a crime. A jury found that it wasn't an "execution" but a tragic mistake. He served time for it and a lawsuit ended up in a large settlement for the family. Now you can argue that the sentence should have been longer (I believe he got 2 years and it could have gone up to 4), but I don't see what else could be done in that situation.
It also wasn't an all-white jury. |
Quote:
And here's where you're wrong and you've been wrong for many, many pages now - frankly, I can't tell if you just don't get it or you're purposely being a troll. I wouldn't assume that all cases of justifiable force are cover-ups. A young black man was shot yesterday (or was it the day before). He had a knife. He was approaching the police. It was a clear case of suicide by cop. Have I posted about that? Well, not until now! I also stated numerous times that in my experience 4 out of 5 cops were good ones. Did you miss that? I only posted it maybe 3 or 4 times. Seriously, the one who is incapable of having a discussion here is YOU, because as soon as someone makes any generalization you instantly take it to a "YOU HATE THEM ALL!!!!" level. The false dichotomy you present is not only inaccurate, it's insulting. So seriously, stuff a sock in it. By the way, you can still have good people in a broken system. You don't have to demonize them for it to break. |
Quote:
I don't think you hate them all, I have read all your posts. But it's clear if there's a grey area, any doubt, you're assuming the worst, because of what happened in other situations. That's why you keep bringing up those other situations, that's why they're relevant to you. You assume the investigation will be unfair. You've talked about Mehserle in the context of how the system is broken and how the system will sweep things under the rug. When he was tried for murder! Those assumptions invalidate the efforts of the prosecutors and police who are ethical. Their investigation are doomed from the start in your mind. They can try an officer for MURDER and you still assume they're sweeping something under the rug. |
Claims of it being swept under the rug don't hold water when just about every person in higher office in the State of Missouri has spoken about the case. You have the Attorney General of the United States in Ferguson today. The President of the United States has spoken on it extensively. And over 40 FBI agents working on this case alone. That would be the opposite of "swept under the rug".
|
Quote:
Was there an African-American on that jury? No. Was the trial moved? Yes - 400 hundred miles away. How long did he serve? 1 year. Tell you what, find me another "accidental" shooting by someone who is trained in firearm use who executes an unarmed man on the ground and gets 1 year. Oh, and the judge threw out the firearm conviction (3-10 years) and gave him double credit for time served. Yea, the system worked. :rolleyes: |
Blackadar you sound like a public defender.
|
Quote:
You brought up that case as an example of law enforcement being generally evil and covering things up, like you've already decided will happen in the Wilson case, regardless of how the facts shake out from here. But that rigged investigation in Mehserle resulted in a MURDER TRIAL. It's hard to get a murder conviction. You have to prove a particular intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the defendant is a police officer. The system is set up to give the defendant every benefit of the doubt. A jury cannot find that intent based on what other officers have done. |
Quote:
No, I responded on the previous page. Your reading comprehension combined with your tendency to do stuff like echo the "Black people only care when it's a white person killing another black person" trope is pretty concerning for someone who is theoretically trying to improve our criminal justice system. You've just latched onto the position of "I work with cops so I have the exclusive knowledge that they're regular people who have to do a really tough, thankless job," and everyone discussing injustice gets their argument twisted to say they harbor some specific animus against the police. Everyone else knows that too, but they're saying that because these are tough situations for normal people to navigate, the police should be either better trained or not receive as much unchecked power and authority. Everyone else knows that nothing will change if the standard for law enforcement remains "don't be actively evil" rather than "be extremely aware that even good people can abuse power/be unjust in these circumstances." |
Quote:
Good, then you can stop trying to project me demonizing everyone because it's tiresome (at best). Of course I'm going to expect the worst. Because it happens all too often. Especially if you're poor and especially if you're a minority. That's why you raise kids not to trust cops - because the worst case scenario isn't all that rare. It may still be the exception and not the rule, but it only takes one time for it to ruin your life (or deprive you of it). And if you're poor and/or a minority, the chance is high enough that it's not worth taking. Dealing with the police is like Russian Roulette. The odds work for you, but the consequences aren't really pleasant. Except as a minority, there are more bullets in the gun *and* you're going to end up taking more turns pulling the trigger. This isn't the discussion for Mehserle. But it's sad if you think justice was really done in that case. It doesn't get more cut-and-dried than that. It was an execution on tape. Anyone else goes to jail for Murder, no doubt. But giving Mehserle time before having to make any statement, moving the trial, the jury selection, throwing out the firearm charge, double credit for time served...if you think that was all part of justice being blind, well...I'm sorry for you. Go ask Oscar Grant's parents if they feel justice was done. |
Quote:
He was sentenced to 2 years in jail. The Judge could choose between 2-4 years by law. He only served one due to rules in California related to good behavior. This applies to all prisoners. There do seem to be other cases that are sentenced in similar ranges. The person who was found guilty in the shooting death of Alexander Centeno only spent 18 months in jail. Your issue seems to be more with the sentencing guideline for involuntary manslaughter and time off for good behavior. For the record I do think Mehserle should have been given the 4 years (he would have been out in 2) but I don't find the decision a sign the system is broken. |
I can't speak for what happened in Ferguson. I hope that the FBI and other agencies can get a read on what actually transpired and make sure there is justice for everyone in this situation.
I do believe Police officers have an incredibly complex and dangerous job. I wish communities would quit spending so much money on military grade equipment and use that cash to expand the number of officers, bring in better quality people and provide better training. |
Quote:
+1. I saw some earlier posts where people were saying there should be an independent investigation of the situation. The FBI may be officers of the law, but they're certainly not affiliated with the Ferguson PD in any way. It would appear to me to be far more independent than most investigations I've seen. |
I'm also not apologizing for police behavior. In fact, my Aunt was murdered by two police officers 30 years ago (was a huge story and made into a TV movie). So I know firsthand that the police are capable of murder. And I've stated numerous times that I think there is an astounding amount of incompetence in today's police force and lack of accountability.
But cases like this also have a contingent that want to distort facts and create a false narrative. That the innocent angel who was minding his own business was shot. That all innocent young black men are in the crosshairs from police. And on the other side a noble officer serving and protecting the community was attacked for no reason. That the police only care about getting to the truth and not protecting their colleague. I don't know where the truth is. But I know it's unlikely on either side of this. I'd rather let more facts come out and stop pretending that a story at the top of the national news being commented on by the most powerful political figures in the world is somehow being covered up. |
Quote:
Fair enough. I shouldn't say that it will get covered up. Not now. That's not accurate and so I'll amend my earlier post. But if not for the protests, the media coverage showing how badly the Ferguson PD acts towards the citizens, the general outrage...I believe that this wouldn't be given more than a cursory examination before declaring the shooting justified and pinning a medal on everyone involved. Given what everyone has seen out of the Ferguson PD, does anyone really think differently? Well, anyone besides Jon of course... |
I have two good friends in the police force out here in Arizona. To be honest, I may be one of the few people on this planet not up on the facts in this case, so I don't think I would have much to add on this specific instance. But, I was talking with one of the cops last night and he just said how difficult it is in today's society to be a consistently bad cop. Maybe you can get away with something every now and then, but everyone has cell phones and there are a million cop watchdog organizations just waiting to pounce. I thought he made some good points and while I do think there are many cops out there who try to get away with things or have the wrong attitude/mentality - I think it is very difficult for police to consistently infringe upon the rights of anyone (minority or white) and not have to eventually pay the piper.
So, I would use the media/government response to this case as another example of how I think we have a better police force now than 10 years ago. That is a good thing and while that doesn't mean they are perfect, it does mean the system is currently setup to ensure many cases of abuse don't go undetected and that will continue to improve cop behavior. |
|
Quote:
I agree with that. I guess my point is that I think this isn't so much a race thing as a "cops will cover for cops" thing. We have countless cases in Chicago with cops covering up for DUIs, violent assaults, torture, and other serious crimes. The victims range widely in race and gender. This was a pretty famous story locally. Chicago Police Found Guilty of Covering Up Bartender Beating - ABC News Cop got drunk, beat the tar out of some tiny white woman, and all his cop buddies helped cover it up. They tried to get the security camera, threatened her, and didn't fully investigate it. Only became an issue when the media got a hold of the tape and released it. |
Quote:
And if his department had any integrity they would fire him immediately. |
Quote:
|
If only the cops had to pay out the damages and not the taxpayers.
|
I always said damages should come out of their pension fund. You'd clean up the police force real quick.
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I feel the same way. Before I moved, I had 3 cops living in a one block radius. Safe neighborhood I guess. One was a good friend named Awych (pronounced "H"). H rented a house, struggled to make ends meet, was an awesome guy - we'd BBQ together, get the kids together, etc. His wife finally went back to work and he absolutely was the kind of officer everyone would want to know. He was a huge teddy bear. He and his wife have a standing invite to come down and stay at our house any time they want. A second one - Mike - lived in the cul-de-sac. Mike's house was twice the size of ours, he had new cars, a boat, jet skis, took expensive vacations and his wife didn't work. He was a regular line officer. Either someone in that family inherited a lot of money or he was on the take. For seven years that well never ran dry. He was smart though - he didn't drive a Lambo or anything like that. But his cars were always new, he had a large house, that boat was worth a couple hundred grand, lawn service, ate out all the time...you name it. Seems mighty odd...I mentioned it to Awych once and he just rolled his eyes and nodded his head in a "you know what's going on" manner. A third one - can't remember his name - wasn't rich and lived around the block. But he was the epitome of the overaggressive, power hungry cop. He threatened people who didn't vote for him when he tried to take over the HOA. He had about 8 dogs in his backyard and let them bark all the time. He was always spoiling for a fight. Every time there was a shooting in Charlotte, I figured he was the one who did it. He had numerous complaints against him for excessive force, all swept under the rug - with this guy you could assume that he did it. He threatened his neighbor (because his neighbor called animal control on the dogs) with his service revolver. Guess what? No charges filed, even with witnesses. Now mind you I worked with about 100 law enforcement agencies for 7 years in the 90s. The vast majority of the guys I met were pretty good. But I don't believe it's all that hard to be on the take or a bad cop. It appears that a couple of my neighbors found a way... |
You don't need to be a dickbag every second you're on the job to be a bad cop, just make poor decisions once in a while. Also, good cops make terrible decisions on occasion - like we all do.
|
Quote:
You use quotes, but I didn't say that. Noop said he thought the value of a black life wasn't worth much any more. I think this story shows that Brown's life did matter. The media, the situation on the ground, the attorney general is on the ground there now. Societally, there is not that kind of concern about gun violence in Chicago. I think that is rooted in societal racism to some extent. Obviously, there are people that care a lot about both situations, especially in the black community in those places, and I made sure to clarify that in a latter post because that first post was too broad. |
So that leads me to this - there are basically four scenarios if we choose between good cop / bad cop and good shooting / bad shooting:
Good Cop / Good Shooting: The officer's POV. This is the narrative that's being pushed recently, with the sudden influx of eye-witness accounts backing up the officer's story. I'd say 40% probable Good Cop / Bad Shooting: Did the officer simply make a bad choice? Did he feel threatened when Brown had actually surrendered? "Hands up, don't shoot?" Seems possible, even plausible. I'd say 55% Bad Cop / Good Shooting: Seems to me 0% likely. No reasonable scenario fits this. Bad Cop / Bad Shooting: Was the officer willing to kill an unarmed kid and chalk it up as getting some scumbag off the street? Did the officer think "now that we got in a scuffle, I'm justified shooting this kid" and then did it regardless of if Brown was running away? I'm not inclined to believe this either, and the officer's history - what we know of it anyway - doesn't back this up. 5% possible. |
I think you're probably in the ballpark with your probabilities Todd.
I think it's the added wrinkle of "Bad PD" thrown in there being what's causing the majority of the issues. It's the appearance of improper response/coverup/whatever else that has inflamed things to this point. If it had been dealt with better as it happened/in the immediate aftermath I don't think it gets this far out of control. I get that they're all independent PD's, but it seems to me that this situation was really screaming for a more experienced/professional response from the PD from the instant after the shooting on. Like there should be some county/state level officer who's job is to get called everytime there's an officer-involved shooting and coordinate everything from "okay yes there's an ambulance on the way. Okay, CSI is on the way" all the way through the PR. Because I think with an experienced person doing that you remove a lot of the flashpoints. |
Quote:
I didn't say justice was done in that case. I relate most to the prosecutors there, the ones that charged him with murder. I did see that as a very difficult charge to prove in those circumstances, but still a very appropriate charge to pursue. I was disputing your use of that as an example of something being swept under the rug, and you've amended that now. I can understand your perspective and distrust. And I do recognize that my experiences are going to give me an entirely different perspective that others aren't necessarily going to share. I think you're a smart guy and I do respect your perspective on this. That's part of why I really wanted you to at least meet me halfway. But I haven't gone about that the right way and I've been too defensive. So I think it's a good time for me to duck out of this because I think I'm having the opposite effect I really want to have. It's the whole deal where I'm trying to be understood when it's always more productive to try better to understand. My personal annoyance with what I feel are unfair assumptions, and how they relate to me, is ultimately petty and distracting from everything. Posters like Toddzilla with his breakdown two posts above are saying exactly what I want to say in a much more productive way. We're ultimately dealing with probabilities but assumptions about groups are what bring people into believing category 4 is fact (or 2, or 1.) I stick by most everything I've said though. When negative things are assumed about people, or a process, just because of the group they're in or what the process is, improvement is really, really difficult. It's something you just can't break through without some concession on both sides. But there are lots of people that try their best anyway. |
Quote:
No I'm not, and you know it, but way to play the race card - that came out the pack from nowhere. Look at it this way: if you go into a meeting and shake someone's hand and smile, will you get a better reaction in return than if you punched them to the floor? Is the latter course of action a good idea, especially if that person does have the ability to make your life a hell for an extended period of time? If as would appear to be the case the poster had literally nothing to hide, why not be open and honest instead of being evasive? Not answering questions meaning you can't be detained? That's madness, and again means no-one would ever be arrested unless they were caught in the act. Asking for an attorney to be present clearly protects you, but also means that you are going to be detained for a longer time. If he had just explained what was going on, who knows, maybe the cop would have gone OK, sorry to have stopped you, away you go. It's happened to me a couple of times, and while it's annoying that it delays me a five or ten minutes, as I have nothing to hide I've got nothing to fear, so it's no problem: not everyone the police stop have done something wrong, but some will have - if they don't stop anyone, preventative policing will be hugely ineffective (or even more ineffective I guess depending on your viewpoint) I grant you as a middle class bloke who grew up in a village rather than a town or city, my attitude is likely different to someone who grew up in a poor urban area, but i can't fathom why people think being obstructive, aggressive, belligerent or just plain dicks to the police is the way forward? Particularly if you have literally nothing to hide? Surely that just means that if you have been unlucky enough to draw one of the few bad cops on a bad day, they could try and find something and pin it on you? Better just to play the game and be answer the questions IMHO - doesn't mean you have to kow-tow or be a pussy, just answer the questions. I will qualify that by saying the one thing that must make a big difference between here and the US is that both parties could well be armed, which must make both parties more twitchy, but that's another argument entirely. |
|
Quote:
You provided 100% justification for it. Your reasoning absolutely leads to that. If you can't see it, go back and read what you wrote. You justified arresting someone - not just pulling them over, but detaining them - because their skin color and their car don't belong in that neighborhood. Where do you think that line of logic takes you? I'm not angry with you nor do I think you're a bigot but that's exactly where you go with your line of reasoning. That's exactly what will happen. If you really don't believe that, then it's incumbent upon you to change your logic or provide enough nuance in your reasoning that this isn't where this ends up. Quote:
And everything you just said? From a legal perspective, it's not supposed to matter. None of it. Essentially, your argument boils down to "if you have nothing to hide give the cop his answers". That's not the way the law is written. It's a BS response. In the US, I don't have to speak to a cop without an attorney present. I don't have to allow him to search my car for no reason. Refusal to do so is not any indication that a crime has been committed. It is not reason for probable cause. It's not even cause for reasonable suspicion. Maybe the laws are different in England, but not here. There's a reason why suspects are read their Miranda warning here. It starts off with: "You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." Do you understand what those words really mean? Make a misstatement? Stutter? Get confused in a stressful situation? Your words may lead you straight to jail. Every single defense lawyer in this country would say exactly what I'm saying - don't talk to the cops. Don't let them search you. Don't give them any information because they WILL put the worst possible spin on your words if you end up going to court over something. That's their job. Your position is the same as the Op-Ed written by the cop and posted a couple of pages ago. The one that says "do what I tell you to do". Popehat has a great response to that and I suggest you read it: Sunil Dutta Tells It Like It Is About American Policing | Popehat |
|
The flipside of that of course is though, that if you exercise those rights you run the risk of making your life more complicated (as happened to CU Tiger).
Not making any judgement about whether that's "right" or "wrong," just stating the fact. |
Interesting thing in this article that I hadn't heard thus far. Source said that cameras for cars in Ferguson were ordered and delivered, but hadn't been installed yet.
Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News |
Quote:
But it shouldn't have DT and that's the point. I'm sure you agree. It may be a fact, but had CU pursued legal action against the officer and/or the department, perhaps it wouldn't happen to the next guy. I'm a believer that if we don't assert our rights, they will get taken away. I'm not disrespectful to the police but I'll be damned if I'm going let them trample on my rights in the name of law and order. |
Quote:
Wow. I find it very interesting how the officers' injuries keep getting worse. At first it was just a struggle. Then he went to the hospital for a minor bruise or a "swolen face". Now he has broken bones and was knocked almost unconscious? Please excuse me if I remain highly skeptical of this. And note there is video footage of Darren Wilson after the shooting, who remained at the scene for quite a while and did not call for an ambulance. Yeah...sure. |
Quote:
I do completely agree. |
Some info to back up claims by Ferguson residents that the people destroying their town through looting are mostly people who don't even live in the area.
Report: Only 3 of 78 Arrested Protesters Were Ferguson Residents |
Quote:
This is a great video BTW. |
Quote:
No - reread: yes it's one of the reasons why suspicion may have been aroused, and if you don't believe standing out compared to the surroundings(including, but far from limited to only, skin colour) plays no part in how people are perceived I don't know where to start. I never once said it was the reason to stop, and never even suggested it was a reason to detain - that was because the guy refused to/couldn't explain why he was there, hence not reducing the cop's suspicion. The rest I take your point, but if you don't answer, you increase the likelihood of the stop being prolonged while further investigation is carried out, which was one of the poster's complaints. Quote:
Supposed to and in actually are two different things. I have no knowledge of being in someone's shoes in a US-inner city and as I said maybe that has some bearing, and is certainly different to my upbringing, but I maintain that a large part of how people react to you is reflective of your attitude to them. Quote:
No it's not - their job is try and to find out the truth in that situation. That is clearly an idealised version of their job, but the job of the police is definitely not to pin anything and everything they can on the first law abiding citizen they can pull over which is how I read what you are saying? To be frank, there is an aggression in your couple of posts on this which I hadn't noticed generally in your posts, so I can see that you feel strongly about this, but I have to respectfully disagree to the reality in my environment and to the principle in general, although as I've said a number of times I have no experience of any US neighbourhoods anything like Ferguson. |
Quote:
On the VICE feed last night the guy was pointing out how a lot of the people on the streets were people he had seen protesting in New York and other cities. Basically professional protesters. He also mentioned the media outnumbered the protesters. When you throw in the people showing up from out of town who want to be arrested too it kind of sucks what is happening to the town. |
Quote:
Had I followed the genius advice above, I'd have atleast 2 speeding tickets and a potential "suspect DUI" to deal with. I can't believe people are this stupid to act like this "for all police interactions". Maybe if you have unlimited funds to spend on attorneys (which would explain why lawyers love this tactic), but even then it's not very smart. I get if a cop comes up to you out of the blue and says you are under arrest for murder - by all means lawyer up and be quiet then. But, for normal traffic stops? That's a quick path to a ticket or even other offense you didn't even realize. |
People are stupid to invoke their 5th Amendment right? Interesting viewpoint to take.
|
Quote:
I'm sorry because I'm not trying to be "aggressive". It's just that your posts literally make me *facepalm* with the logic and reasoning you provide. First, we'll disagree on where your logic takes you when you're stopping people for being the wrong color in a certain neighborhood and then arresting people when you don't like their answers. Secondly, what you're saying about speaking to the cops is complete bunk. You're asserting the people should not protect their Constitutional rights because the police may violate them if you do? Instead we shouldn't assert or protect your rights at all because it may work out better for us? What kind of logic is that? Sorry, I'd rather assert my rights and know at least that legally I'm covered. If it agitates a cop that I'm following the law and expecting them to do the same, then that's his/her problem. If they make it mine, I will seek restitution. And finally, I really suggest you watch the video linked. The first 10 minutes will tell you exactly why you don't talk to cops. Please. |
Quote:
Good news on this. Twitter / LauraKHettiger: Update from @stlcountypd re: ... |
Quote:
:lol: |
Quote:
You line up 20 traffic stops and have a person act polite and reasonable on the first 10 and "refuse to talk" for the other 10 and see who ends up with more tickets and overall level of hassle. I get it for really serious stuff, but having this attitude across the board just seems childish and stupid - not to mention actually hurting your chances of a positive outcome. |
[Hey guys was away from a computer all day. Came back and initially saw several questions/responses regarding my post from yesterday then a bunch of unrelatd conversation. I intended to let my sidebar drift away and not bump it but since it has been re-introduced in the last 5 or so posts, and since I am somewhat calmer now than when I posted yesterday I want to clarify a few things.]
- The charge on my ticket was "suspicion of intent to purchase drugs" I quoted that both times for a reason. No code identificaton number was provided and no charge exists on the SC Code of law related to that language. The criminal part of my trial lasted less than 10 minutes. My lawyer introduced a motion to dismiss since I was detained and arrested on a claim that was not a state law. And no code of law was identified. The judge asked the prosecution (BTW it was a bench trial not a jury trial...we hadnt even got to the point of requesting that yet which was coming next) to provide the formal charge. The DA asked for a recess to "get his notes from his office". He came back and only said "We do not oppose the motion"...that was it. I was dismissed from the charges that were fild that never existed. My Bond was returned some 90 days later in total over 6 months since I had paid it. [It was a significant amount of money ($4,500) However if I would have been found guilty by law I would have had to pay the entirity of the fine within 7 days or be found in contempt of court....sorry for the side rant but that part still ticks me off as injust. I was blessed to be in a position where I could survive without that money I have often wondered what would have happened if I could not] - I did bring civil charges for restitution. The Officer who arrested me was protected by "Qualified Immunity". I will let the lawyers on board explain that but as I understand it, since he was doing his job even though he did it poorly and incorrectly he was protected. - Following that decision we brought civil charges against a couple entities [BTW another aside SC law required only 1 defendant per claim so each agency was a separate charge and docket number and cost] I will spare everyone a bunch of details but in the end they determined that I could not prove the damage to her SUV was caused by their actions. (Despite the fact that we submitted pictures of a utility pole directly across the street from where my truck was seized with matching paint at exact height, and testimony from a paint shop that certified the paint was a perfct match. AND testimony from the tow truck driver who said the officer told him he hit the pole while pulling the truck into a parking lot and asked him to make it look like it was damaged while towing) Regarding the missing gun the court decided that the paperwork showing 3 weapons taken from the car "was likely erroneous despite it matching the claimant's testimony" but "if the department later discovered that the item was in evidence hold and misplaced it would be returned" [ Another side bar...someone is wondering why I needed 3 guns and while it is my right to have as many as I damn well please, I will explain. 1 was my person CCW which is always on me. The 2nd was my wife's CCW which stays in her console. The 3rd (and the one that was lost) was a moderately expensive "collector" gun that was in the glove box that I had purchased that morning and hadnt taken home yet. I dont normally travel with a small arsenal.] Several people have asked "Why not be 100% honest" If I had it to do over again I probably would have done some things differently. But I had just dropped off an employee whom I had terminated earlier that day. In a neighborhood I was unfamiliar with. I had been followed by a LEO through 7 or 8 turns...in short I was already a bit tense myself. It wasnt a pleasant situation for me. And the officer was very hostile and aggressive from the get go. Add on to all that, I was in the middle of a workers comp case with another employee and had just gone through some communictaion training with my lawyer as it related to HIPPA and I was hesitant to even tell anyone I owned a damn company. I reacted professionally and calmly but my shields went up very quickly. Each side brings their own baggage and bias to any situation, unfortunately the law fully protects a LEO when he screws up. No one protects me when I do. |
Quote:
How do you define acting like an obstructionist? And when is asserting your Constitutional rights being a dick? |
So using rights granted to you by the Constitution is stupid and obstructionist? If the officers are inconvenienced by someone invoking their rights, that isn't the person's problem. It is an officer looking for expediency, not what is right.
|
Quote:
This is also true. It's an overreaction to jump right to this for say a minor traffic infraction, but it's good to at least know what your rights are if things start to escalate (as for example it did in CU Tiger's case). That being said - there's nuggets to take from this into even a minor traffic stop. |
Quote:
These are all referring to the same event, but just have different levels of spin. If you get into a scuffle with someone and end up with a shiner, there's a pretty good chance you've also suffered a minor orbital bone fracture (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if the person in the "what to do for a broken heart?" thread has a fractured orbital bone). Even if you don't seek medical treatment for that, it heals on its own within a couple of weeks. In that case, you'd just put ice on your shiner and would be none the wiser when you're back to normal once the swelling disappears. If you did see a doctor, you'd just get something to help with the swelling and maybe an antibiotic, but you'd also gain the information of, "WHOA he broke a bone in my face!" which you could then use as you please. |
If it is true there will be hospital/doctor records. Not really anything to fuss over now until the evidence is released.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.