FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And don't tell me there aren't marches in Chicago protesting gun violence - there are.

There are, they just aren't as heavily attended. There isn't much of a stink made over it. It's usually used as a photo-op by the local activist of the month looking to earn national fame.

Perhaps in the community black lives only matter when a cop does the killing. Perhaps it's the fact there isn't money to be made being an activist for black on black crime. Perhaps they are just scared of going up against the local gangs.

Whatever the case is, it's impossible to deny the different responses. The biggest protests this weekend in Chicago were over the actions of another police department halfway across the country who killed a convicted rapist and domestic abuser who was resisting arrest with a firearm. It wasn't over the 100+ people who were shot over the course of the week in our own city.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And, don't we hold cops to a higher standard?

"We" don't. We should, but we don't. There's a fetishization of police in this country on par with the military - anything but blind support gets treated as "you don't support our cops/troops!" And, to be fair, that extends not just to the DA's who don't bring charges, but to the juries who don't convict when the evidence is strong enough to merit those charges.

Police officers seldom face charges, let alone trials, for killings committed in the line of duty, and when the evidence appears egregious enough to force the DA's hand, the jury typically votes to acquit.

A police officer facing felony charges is half as likely to be convicted as a civilian facing felony charges - 33% conviction rate for a police officer facing felony charges compared with a 67% or so civilian rate.

Upon conviction, incarceration rates for a police officer drop to 1/4 that of civilians convicted of felonies; 48% of civilians with felony convictions do time, compared with 12% of police officers convicted of felonies.

To be fair, those felony convictions and incarcerations cover a wider range of felonious crimes than just those which result in death, but the other side of that is that those 12% who do serve time may be those accused of, say, raping someone detained as part of a traffic stop.

And that's the thing. All too often, if a police officer fatally shoots someone, the rush to justification begins. Did he have a criminal past? Was he a "thug"? Etc. And that tends not to happen as much with other police misconduct. It's easy to throw the dead under the bus to protect the "thin blue line." It's a lot harder to do that to a living individual alleging rape.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The biggest protests this weekend in Chicago were over the actions of another police department halfway across the country who killed a convicted rapist and domestic abuser

I've almost replied in this thread about 10 times and stopped myself. But this just keeps coming up. The police that shot and killed this individual either acted properly based on what was happening during the arrest, or they did not. If the police are determined to have overstepped their bounds then they need to be punished and prosecuted. They should be punished and prosecuted equally if they killed a priest vs someone who has raped someone in their past. If a police officer kills someone during an arrest and the circumstances did not justify the use of deadly force, then they grossly overstepped their bounds and need to be punished. That's just all there is to it.

The casual mention of crimes that happened long ago as if they are supposed to exonerate the police officers who shot and killed this man is getting unbelievably painful to read. Did the cops fuck up or not? Isn't that what matters here? If the cops fucked up, they need to be dealt with and not allowed to hide behind the badge. If they didn't, ok, fine. This goes for Baton Rouge and Minnesota, despite the apparent different backgrounds of the victims.


And to extend the point, awareness and protest of an unjust killing by police are not any less valid if the victim turns out to have done bad things in his past. When I read so many of these posts here, I get the feeling that the sentiment is that MAYBE the use of deadly force was unjustified, but that its ok because who cares, it was just some rapist. That doesn't feel very good to me at all.


I'll note that I cut off your quote on purpose, I left out the part about resisting arrest and having a gun. That's relevant to whether deadly force was justified. But when you say "was a rapist and domestic abuser who resisted arrest and had a gun" ... well, some of those things just are not relevant to whether this was justified, and mixing them into the rest of the conversation like they are going to make your point stronger is disingenuous.

[Groundhog]

It reminds me of the "well, he was doing it too!" defense you hear from 5 year olds. What the guy had done in the past has zero bearing on what happened with him and the two officers.

He may not haven been a good guy and maybe the world is a better place without him, but if the cops unlawfully killed him, they should be punished, unless you are happy with your police dishing out street justice.

[AlexB]

I think one of the issues is that yes there is a problem here, but there is also a lionisation of some often unsavoury characters, and no media mention for the fact that ten times the number of black americans are killed by other black americans than are killed by cops.

If BLM had a joint focus that cop killings are disproportionately affecting the black population, AND they were trying to do something to tackle the much higher volume black-on-black murders, I think they would have a lot more sympathy.

In today's world people are right or wrong: there's no middle ground. But ignoring a large part of the debate will allow many to feel victimised themselves, causing more division, which is what BLM say that they want to change.

To give some context from where I'm coming from, from what I've read, and I've only seen the basic articles here, the two most recent incidents seem to be tragic but understandable, sudden movements that could easily be interpreted as going for a weapon, and caused a reaction. Some of the earlier incidents (the guy running away through the park, Freddie Gray, etc) were egregious and need to be addressed.

Edit to add: in both recent cases I understand a reaction being caused, the degree of reaction is questionable though to say the least. Not sure that a leg or arm shot wouldn't have subdued someone reaching for a gun while prone, and the guy sat in his car is a very difficult one: if he is reaching for something, presumably having been told to keep his hands visible, is there a 'subdue with minimal risk of death' target area while sat in a car?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

I've almost replied in this thread about 10 times and stopped myself. But this just keeps coming up. The police that shot and killed this individual either acted properly based on what was happening during the arrest, or they did not. If the police are determined to have overstepped their bounds then they need to be punished and prosecuted. They should be punished and prosecuted equally if they killed a priest vs someone who has raped someone in their past. If a police officer kills someone during an arrest and the circumstances did not justify the use of deadly force, then they grossly overstepped their bounds and need to be punished. That's just all there is to it.

The casual mention of crimes that happened long ago as if they are supposed to exonerate the police officers who shot and killed this man is getting unbelievably painful to read. Did the cops fuck up or not? Isn't that what matters here? If the cops fucked up, they need to be dealt with and not allowed to hide behind the badge. If they didn't, ok, fine. This goes for Baton Rouge and Minnesota, despite the apparent different backgrounds of the victims.


And to extend the point, awareness and protest of an unjust killing by police are not any less valid if the victim turns out to have done bad things in his past. When I read so many of these posts here, I get the feeling that the sentiment is that MAYBE the use of deadly force was unjustified, but that its ok because who cares, it was just some rapist. That doesn't feel very good to me at all.


I'll note that I cut off your quote on purpose, I left out the part about resisting arrest and having a gun. That's relevant to whether deadly force was justified. But when you say "was a rapist and domestic abuser who resisted arrest and had a gun" ... well, some of those things just are not relevant to whether this was justified, and mixing them into the rest of the conversation like they are going to make your point stronger is disingenuous.

I think his background matters when it comes to protesting. I thought Ben made a great point that you need to pick your battles. When you're trying to create change, you need to have a sympathetic story. Alton Sterling is not a sympathetic character. He's a career criminal who is a nuisance to any community he is a part of. He has no regard for the law whatsoever (and particularly no regard for women). Shutting down bridges for this man when you don't do the same for a 4-year old who gets shot looks bad. You're turning a gigantic piece of shit into a martyr and that doesn't sit well with people.

Now the shooting in Minnesota is another story. That's an individual that by all accounts is sympathetic. He worked at a school cafeteria and the kids loved him. He had no criminal history. He registered his gun properly with the government. This is the person the protest should be over, not Alton Sterling. And mixing those two together just muddies the waters.

I'd also add that I do think his background is relevant when determining fault. The video doesn't show everything. We ultimately have to use our own judgement here as to whether their actions were justified. His background tells us about who he is as a person. It shows us he is violent, he has no regard for the law, and that he has resisted arrest. So in a situation where fault isn't clear, I'll take the side of the individual who doesn't have his background.

Mind you if the officers involved end up having a dozen excessive force complaints and a history of abusing their authority, I think it's equally as valid. If they have racist postings online it's valid as well. And you can bet the people saying his criminal history doesn't matter would be screaming about those officers history if it was bad.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And you can bet the people saying his criminal history doesn't matter would be screaming about those officers history if it was bad.

Do you not get the difference?

Someone with a history of racist screeds or use of excessive force being in a position of public trust is not at all the same thing as excusing the extrajudicial killing of someone with a history of trouble with the law because of that history.

If a killing is improper, it doesn't matter what the history of the decedent is. Maybe you're Jon and you think that person is better up pushing up daisies even if their only crime in the moment was to fail to offer to walk a little old lady across the parking lot, because they have a criminal past and are thus worthless scum. Doesn't matter - only the actions of the individual *in that moment* justify the use of lethal force.

Self-defense can be a justification, but it should not be a blanket justification that an officer can throw out as a "get out of consequences free" card.

As to the history of the police officer, the past words and deeds of the person pulling the trigger are absolutely relevant. If the officer has a history of excessive force, it's fair to question whether a shooting represents another example thereof.

If the officer has a history of making racist comments, then that's a training/sensitivity issue for which the department is culpable. The police officer may not have been consciously acting in a racist way at the time he pulled the trigger, but that would be a failure of the department to not have previously addressed those behaviors.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

He may not haven been a good guy and maybe the world is a better place without him, but if the cops unlawfully killed him, they should be punished, unless you are happy with your police dishing out street justice.

I don't disagree and this absolutely makes senses to me. However, BLM seems to have already pre-judged the cops in the recent incidents without due process. Right now, we do not know if those cops unlawfully killed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

And to extend the point, awareness and protest of an unjust killing by police are not any less valid if the victim turns out to have done bad things in his past. When I read so many of these posts here, I get the feeling that the sentiment is that MAYBE the use of deadly force was unjustified, but that its ok because who cares, it was just some rapist. That doesn't feel very good to me at all.

I guess I can see where you are getting this from the previous threads but that's not my POV. Per my above, the full story is not yet out on the recent incidents and, yes, the LEOs get the benefit of the doubt.

This is how I am thinking. Most of the incidents I've read about involved the suspect either not listening to the cops, resisting, have committed some sort of criminal behavior just before the incident, having a rap sheet etc.

If a cop tells me to get on the ground where he can cuff me etc. I'll do it and not struggle

A person having a list of having "done bad things in his past" is more likely to not follow cops instructions and done above things where the situation gets escalate. With that said, I'm okay with giving the LEOs the benefit of doubt until the due diligence is done.

[Dutch]

Well, I wish I had all the answers. I know I don't. I wish people would not be taught to hate. I wish they would always do their best given the circumstances.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Shutting down bridges for this man when you don't do the same for a 4-year old who gets shot looks bad. You're turning a gigantic piece of shit into a martyr and that doesn't sit well with people.

The thing is though, what are you protesting in the case of the 4-year old? Who do you want to take action? Whose attention are you trying do draw, and what is the desired result?

“Some people out there have no regard for human life,” Escalante said. “The shooter saw a porch filled with people and didn’t care who he would hit.”

So...are you protesting the killers? If you are, why do they care? What is going to make them change their behavior? Everybody knows that people are dying in Chicago. The media knows about it, politicians know about it. Cops know about it, the community knows about it. This isn't new information. I'm not sure what a protest does here, whose behavior is going to change. Those doing the killings don't care. They're immune to political pressure.

BLM might be disorganized, but I think there's a point in raising a ruckus here. It brings an issue to light that has been very easily ignored. It is making people look and think about the behavior of police and the criminal justice system as a whole. It can put pressure on the police. It can put pressure on politicians. Those are the groups that can effect change.

Originally Posted by Edward64

A person having a list of having "done bad things in his past" is more likely to not follow cops instructions and done above things where the situation gets escalate. With that said, I'm okay with giving the LEOs the benefit of doubt until the due diligence is done.

The key is making sure that due diligence is done and making sure it is done fairly.

Police Officer Who Killed Ethan Saylor, Unarmed Man With Down Syndrome, Won't Be Indicted | LifeNews.com

Judge: Lawsuit in police death of man with Down Syndrome can move forward - The Washington Post

That one actually made it to a grand jury. Most don't. But they still didn't find enough to say the (off-duty) officers were responsible. The sheriff's office obviously backed their own guys (and the sheriff's brother even posted to the effect that hey, maybe he shouldn't have been outside his home; he victim-blamed a man with Down Syndrome).

The judge noted the deputies’ defense: that they followed training in steadily escalating force to remove Saylor from his seat.

The answer isn't always a steady escalation of force. Not all situations are the same.

(My daughter has a friend with a 16yo brother who has a fairly severe case of autism. They under no circumstances want to be in a situation where police would come in contact with him.)

[cuervo72]

Some perspectives from a couple of black cops that just popped up on FB (the first from a repost, the other two from related links).

https://www.facebook.com/jay.stalien...11372818974402

Being a cop showed me just how racist and violent the police are. There’s only one fix. - The Washington Post

I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing - Vox

They don't necessarily agree, but reading both accounts is worthwhile.

I realized that they refuse to believe that most cops acknowledge that there are Bad cops who should have never been given a badge & gun

On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending on whom they are working with.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Some perspectives from a couple of black cops that just popped up on FB (the first from a repost, the other two from related links).

https://www.facebook.com/jay.stalien...11372818974402

Being a cop showed me just how racist and violent the police are. There’s only one fix. - The Washington Post

I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing - Vox

They don't necessarily agree, but reading both accounts is worthwhile.

Two very differing perspectives, which highlights one of the things that make this issue so hard to definitively refine. The culture within Police departments can and will vary immensely from city to city, state to state. Multiple factors contribute to this including leadership within the department, the racial makeup of both the police and community, general overall race relations within the community and the economic strength of the community.

Based on what we have heard or has come to light I can believe the 15/70/15 split exists in St Louis or Chicago, while it is likely not the same here in Phoenix for example. I use Phoenix because I am good friends with a black female police officer here and while acknowledging there are bad apples, raves about the most officers she works with and the overall amount of good officers in the Phoenix PD. And if she felt there was an issue, she would speak about it with swiftness.

That is why it is so exasperating to me to see both sides of the debate often painted with such a broad brush.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

"We" don't. We should, but we don't. There's a fetishization of police in this country on par with the military - anything but blind support gets treated as "you don't support our cops/troops!" And, to be fair, that extends not just to the DA's who don't bring charges, but to the juries who don't convict when the evidence is strong enough to merit those charges.

Police officers seldom face charges, let alone trials, for killings committed in the line of duty, and when the evidence appears egregious enough to force the DA's hand, the jury typically votes to acquit.

A police officer facing felony charges is half as likely to be convicted as a civilian facing felony charges - 33% conviction rate for a police officer facing felony charges compared with a 67% or so civilian rate.

Upon conviction, incarceration rates for a police officer drop to 1/4 that of civilians convicted of felonies; 48% of civilians with felony convictions do time, compared with 12% of police officers convicted of felonies.

To be fair, those felony convictions and incarcerations cover a wider range of felonious crimes than just those which result in death, but the other side of that is that those 12% who do serve time may be those accused of, say, raping someone detained as part of a traffic stop.

And that's the thing. All too often, if a police officer fatally shoots someone, the rush to justification begins. Did he have a criminal past? Was he a "thug"? Etc. And that tends not to happen as much with other police misconduct. It's easy to throw the dead under the bus to protect the "thin blue line." It's a lot harder to do that to a living individual alleging rape.

There's two types of homicides that are very different under U.S. law than all others in that they pose more difficult questions for judges, prosecutors, and jurors because of the issues of how to prove the required intent, and how the relevant statutes are written. One is homicides committed by people who have a concern for their safety. And the other is homicides committed by people who have a lawful authority to seize the other person, and to use any force necessary to carry out that seizure if there's resistance. And obviously there's lots of scenarios where those two types overlap. Police officer is definitely the occupation that's going to be involved in both scenario the most.

So yes, a police officer homicide IS usually different. The law requires that. But civilians who commit homicides in under either category are also usually very difficult cases, also can be the subject of reasonable disagreements, and also usually have a period of prosecutor review before any charges are filed. We've seen plenty of controversial cases involving citizens arguably using self-defense. And when they're using that self-defense against someone who has committed a crime, that second category plays a part too. In most states, citizens have the same power to seize suspected criminals that police do (we tend to highly discourage that as a society, but these legal issues come up when it actually happens). Whenever you have grey areas and reasonable disagreements, race can be more of factor, both because racial motives of the perpetrator can be hidden, or just suspected. And people will always look to race to explain things that can't immediately be explained in other ways.

So maybe we're having a shift in society where more people want to move the goalposts over some, move the self-defense and seizure law to make more of those homicides criminal, and move more of the cases that might be manslaughter today into murder categories. State legislatures can change self-defense and use of force statutes. Civil liability through 4th Amendment Seizure law is trickier because it's constitutional and up to the interpretation of courts, but obviously that can be changed too. What we can't do is change things mid-stream to pending cases.

Prosecutors don't always like the law either but they're bound to follow it. I declined prosecution for plenty of cases where the defendant was a dickhead but where I just couldn't ethically bring a charge. That can make police officers involved in the case very upset, when you dismiss the cases they were involved with. Phone calls to complaining parties telling them you're declining prosecution is very difficult too. There's this reaction that police officers have, just like regular citizens have, where they assume the criminal law matches up with their own sense of moral justice, and assume someone is out to get them or being racist or is being incompetent when it doesn't end up like that upon review of others.

But the criminal law is not supposed to match up exactly with our morals. It's supposed to be much harder to convict people than it is to morally judge them. And it's supposed to much harder to convict someone of a higher-degree crime than a lower-degree crime. And it really is in those two categories of homicides. And it's not just when those categories involve police officers. Self-defense and seizure violent crime cases are brutal because they never feel right, people are usually going to disagree, and someone is guaranteed to feel there's been an injustice.

We can move in the direction of reducing the right of self-defense in criminal cases, and reducing the power of police officers to use force. I don't understand why that's not the focus of the effort though. Instead, the focus is on broadly imposing moral judgments and assigning negative characteristics on BLM and police officers. If people actually wanted practical change, instead of just using the situations as an opportunity to proclaim their moral superiority over groups they don't like anyway, they'd do it through the law, and through the courts, and through city, state, and county governments who fund and regulates these police departments. But too many people don't really want those positive changes, they just want to judge others that they feel superior too. That pushes the groups further apart and minimizes the positive impact that police officers and BLM activists can have.

And those are the most important people in effectuating change, the people actually doing things - the police officers, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, teachers, other public servants, BLM activists, other community leaders, etc. They ultimately have to be the solution. (Though, there will never be a "solution", because humans are involved and we can't be perfect, but those are the groups that can spur improvement most directly, and they've done a pretty great job collectively at doing that, if you look back how things have changed over the decades).

[Ned Doolittle]

Originally Posted by Radii

Click on person's name to go into their profile. Click "Add to your ignore list", then on the next page click "save list"

I only see "Add to buddy list".

Sigh, I give up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ned Doolittle

I only see "Add to buddy list".
Sigh, I give up.

Sheesh, you coulda just asked me. Not sure anyone here has more experience with using the Ignore feature ... and when have I ever been unwilling to answer a perfectly reasonable question?

There's another way to reach the ignore function. Try this (might be located differently between different skins, I honestly don't know)

Go to "User CP"
that should open up a screen with your recently subscribed threads in the middle & a set of text link options on the left rail

Then "Miscellaneous" menu --> "Buddy/Ignore" list sub-menu

That should give you a list of all current "buddy" or "ignore" list members, with a search box (list-specific) where you can enter the desired user name

put in the name, click enter/return, it should immediately populate into the list. Then you have to remember to click the "Save List" button on the bottom right in order to get the changes to stick (very easy to see the name in the list & think you're done, but you gotta Save List to finalize)

Hope that helps.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It reminds me of the "well, he was doing it too!" defense you hear from 5 year olds. What the guy had done in the past has zero bearing on what happened with him and the two officers.

"THEY do it too," is the extent of quite a few board members' critical thinking, and yes, I've noticed the 5-year-old parallel too. "Gotta hear both sides" is the alternative if you wish to sound smarter and more nuanced without actually being so.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

But the criminal law is not supposed to match up exactly with our morals. It's supposed to be much harder to convict people than it is to morally judge them. And it's supposed to much harder to convict someone of a higher-degree crime than a lower-degree crime.

Sure. I can dig it. But here's the thing:

We can move in the direction of reducing the right of self-defense in criminal cases, and reducing the power of police officers to use force.

I'm not interested in handcuffing police officers' ability to do their job, pardon the pun. I'm interested in accountability. And I'm NOT interested in "I was afraid for my life" as a blanket escape-accountability-free card.

You're a police officer. You chose that job, knowing what it means, and one of the things it means is that you may find yourself in a threatening situation. The power of the state means that you have the ability to use lethal force to put an end to dangerous situations, which isn't a power civilians necessarily have. But you trivialize that power and that responsibility if every time you pull the trigger - justified or not - you fall back on "I was afraid for my life."

Sure, leave lethal force in the police toolbox; we pay them to keep the peace, and sometimes keeping the peace is going to mean pulling the trigger.

But there has to be accountability. As many of the same people who unswervingly support the police when shootings happen will tell you, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The legal exercise of that right should not be a death sentence.

"Obey the police officer's orders" is well and good, but Philando Castile was obeying the police officer's orders and got shot anyway.

So...there you are.

[cartman]

Police Officers are civilians. They are not military personnel. That is why misdeeds by police officers are handled by grand juries and civil/criminal courts, not the UCMJ.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The thing is though, what are you protesting in the case of the 4-year old? Who do you want to take action? Whose attention are you trying do draw, and what is the desired result?

So...are you protesting the killers? If you are, why do they care? What is going to make them change their behavior? Everybody knows that people are dying in Chicago. The media knows about it, politicians know about it. Cops know about it, the community knows about it. This isn't new information. I'm not sure what a protest does here, whose behavior is going to change. Those doing the killings don't care. They're immune to political pressure.

If I lived in a neighborhood where 9 year olds are being executed in alleys, I would want more police. I would want them to be more aggressive. I would want them to be stopping gangbangers and frisking them. I would want more jails and tougher sentences for things like illegal firearm possession. My goal would be to remove the cancer from my neighborhood that is holding everything back.

Nothing changes until that element is removed from those neighborhoods. It doesn't matter how much you pump into schools, how much you pump into community programs, into job training. As long as the gangs run those communities, they will take down everyone inside it.

So I guess what I'm saying is the thing I'd be protesting for is the exact opposite of what they are protesting. BLM has made gains in the city. They got the ACLU to work with the police to implement protocols for every street stop. They have gotten cops to be less proactive. Shootings have skyrocketed since those things have been implemented, but the safety of their community has never been a goal of theirs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm not interested in handcuffing police officers' ability to do their job, pardon the pun. I'm interested in accountability. And I'm NOT interested in "I was afraid for my life" as a blanket escape-accountability-free card.

You're a police officer. You chose that job, knowing what it means, and one of the things it means is that you may find yourself in a threatening situation. The power of the state means that you have the ability to use lethal force to put an end to dangerous situations, which isn't a power civilians necessarily have. But you trivialize that power and that responsibility if every time you pull the trigger - justified or not - you fall back on "I was afraid for my life."

Saying "I was afraid" does not alone absolve anyone of a shooting. The claim of fear is relevant, as it would be for any other person in a self-defense/use of force scenario. But it's rare you can ever prove or disprove someone's subjective feelings. The circumstances surrounding a shooting will either support or not support whether the fear is reasonable given the circumstances. And officers involved in shootings are trying to bring (through their attorneys and union reps), much more to the table than "I was afraid." They'll make arguments about the circumstances, highlight facts that are good for them, point to uncertainty when it's the state's or agency's burden to prove wrongdoing - just like every other defense attorney. Except they're more specialized and better-funded than public defender's offices.

And it's more difficult to prove intent for criminal acts when you have split-second judgment calls. I'd personally be happy with more criminal charges in those situations. But there IS a difference between police officers and private citizens when it comes to analyzing split-second use of force. Usually, the officer is in a position where they have the lawful authority to seize the person that's shot, because the person has committed a crime or are suspected of committing a crime. The private citizen sometimes has that same authority, but it's less common. So the private citizen is one step behind the officer right off the bat in justifying the force. When a person is allowed to use SOME force, but uses too much, that's a much more difficult criminal case to make than when you're not allowed to use ANY force, and then clearly use some - which is usually the case with private citizens. But not always, in civilian self-defense/use of force cases, you have the same challenges - look at George Zimmerman. That's the classic bad-guy getting away with bad conduct because of the way the law is case. Back in that thread here I remember explaining exactly what the prosecution was probably fucked, and people got really pissed off.

[molson]

The two from last week are tough cases too. The Louisiana case, let's assume that the officers' defense is what has been speculated here - one officer said "he's got a gun" or "he's going for a gun", and the other officer sincerely interpreted that to mean that the suspect was grabbing his gun. Let's all agree it's a fuck-up. But unless the state could disprove the officer's theory, it wouldn't be even involuntary manslaughter in my state, because involuntary manslaughter requires the intentional commission of a lesser crime that accidentally results in death. I don't think that would fit there. It would be more similar to negligent fuck-up by a doctor or construction worker. Maybe Louisiana law is different.

The Minnesota case looks like a panic-based fuck-up. In my state's law, it couldn't be involuntary manslaughter. If the state couldn't prove it was something besides a panic-based fuck-up, it couldn't be second-degree murder because I don't think we could prove malice aforethought. Voluntary manslaughter might fit, because maybe it's a "sudden quarrel or heat of passion" kind of thing, but it's still different than the traditional "heat of passion" case. And will the state be able to disprove the officer's inevitable defense that the guy was reaching for his gun?

I wish there was officer-based criminal statutes to more specificity define the parameters of when use-of-force becomes criminal. It's very difficult to pin general-application statutes on officers when they have lawful authority to use force in so many of their interactions with citizens. But I think there would be resistance on all sides to that. People would be against it either because it restricts' officers' authority and makes them more liable for crimes based upon mistakes, or because it creates a "different set of rules for officers".

[RainMaker]

The Minnesota case looks really bad. There was absolutely no reason for the cop to panic in that situation. Also don't see why the guy in the car would go for his gun when he had no warrants and no criminal history. Plus he had his child in the backseat. The cops defense makes no sense.

Louisiana should be nothing. Resist arrest with a gun and all bets are off. They'll probably charge the cops because of crybabies but I don't think they'll get a conviction.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Minnesota case looks really bad. There was absolutely no reason for the cop to panic in that situation. Also don't see why the guy in the car would go for his gun when he had no warrants and no criminal history. Plus he had his child in the backseat. The cops defense makes no sense.

I agree, based on what we know. The circumstances tend to disprove any defense theory that the officer could have. It's no slam dunk with the burden on the state, but it'd be a worthy manslaughter-type case to take. I just hope Minnesota has statutes and pattern jury instruction that match the conduct better than my state's.

[RainMaker]

The NRA is still pretty quiet about the Minnesota case. Why do I have a feeling if this was a white guy they would be screaming at the top of their lungs?

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

Saying "I was afraid" does not alone absolve anyone of a shooting. The claim of fear is relevant, as it would be for any other person in a self-defense/use of force scenario.

It is much less relevant as officers have more training for scary gun situations than your average Joe who got a concealed carry permit by forking over some cash and filling in 70 percent of the answers correctly on a test at the end of a three-hour class. A doctor is held to a higher standard of medical care than a random bystander trying to help out in an emergency.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by nol

It is much less relevant as officers have more training for scary gun situations than your average Joe who got a concealed carry permit by forking over some cash and filling in 70 percent of the answers correctly on a test at the end of a three-hour class. A doctor is held to a higher standard of medical care than a random bystander trying to help out in an emergency.

Even with the extra training, it is really surprising how low the accuracy is for shots fired by LEOs in real world situations. Less than 25% of shots fired hit the intended target.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Police Officers are civilians. They are not military personnel. That is why misdeeds by police officers are handled by grand juries and civil/criminal courts, not the UCMJ.

The context here is that police officers are still agents of the state. They don't have a separate justice system the way the military does, but to my mind, a civilian in this context is one who acts without state sanction.

Military and police are both authorized by the state to use deadly force under particular circumstances. A civilian, OTOH, will almost never be permitted to use deadly force against a police officer or member of the military acting within the putative scope of their duties.

About the only thing I can think of would be if a civilian witnessed an assault by a police officer on another civilian, and even then I think it would probably depend on the type of assault. Protecting a civilian from rape at the hands of a police officer might be exculpatory. At least, no DA in their right mind would take that case to court even if it were technically in violation of statute.

Originally Posted by molson

Saying "I was afraid" does not alone absolve anyone of a shooting. The claim of fear is relevant, as it would be for any other person in a self-defense/use of force scenario. But it's rare you can ever prove or disprove someone's subjective feelings.

Which is why I don't believe that should absolve them, but it's the first thing an accused police officer will turn to - possibly even before charges are formally filed - for that exact reason: it's the easiest thing in the world to claim and the hardest thing in the world to prove or disprove.

But the bottom line is, police (and military) have training on how to handle these situations, and in pursuing that line of work that have explicitly volunteered their lives in the service of the public good.

Which means, to me, "afraid for my life" means *less.* Because your job is to protect the public first, and yourself second. Killing somebody on the basis of your fears is a violation of the public's right to due process. If the weapon is being brandished or shots are being fired at you? Open season as far as I'm concerned. You don't point a weapon at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger or you wanna get shot (and someone with less training than a police officer waving a gun around is a threat to the public, not just to the officer).

But shooting someone because "I saw a gun," as Officer Yanez's lawyer is alleging happened here? I think the quote was "if the gun hadn't been present, there would not have been shots fired."

I'm sorry - the Second Amendment doesn't say "right to keep and bear arms unless a cop sees it." Pulling the trigger because you see a gun is not just an abrogation of due process, it's an abrogation of the Second Amendment.

Except they're more specialized and better-funded than public defender's offices.

Sounds to me like police should be required to take comparable representation to those they arrest. I mean, equal protection under the law shouldn't mean that police officers get better representation than civilians when they're alleged to have committed a crime because the Thin Blue Line has their back (yes, I'm mainly snarking here, but the caliber of representation one can afford directly impacts conviction rates, and this is probably one of several factors that make it so difficult for police misconduct to result in actual consequences).

Don't get me wrong, molson. You have a better handle on the law than I do, and I respect that, but I think we're arguing different things. You're arguing whether the state is able to get convictions in these cases because of how the law is framed, while I'm arguing that how the law is framed means that accountability is absurdly low, and that until accountability is introduced and has teeth, it's going to be nigh impossible to repair the breach of trust between police departments and minority communities.

Originally Posted by nol

It is much less relevant as officers have more training for scary gun situations than your average Joe who got a concealed carry permit by forking over some cash and filling in 70 percent of the answers correctly on a test at the end of a three-hour class. A doctor is held to a higher standard of medical care than a random bystander trying to help out in an emergency.

Bingo. Certain jobs we reserve to certain classes, to particular types of training. Police officers, as doctors, ought to be held to a higher standard than your average concealed carry permit holder, because of the value we ostensibly place on what they offer to society.

If you pick up that badge and swear to protect and to serve, we should be holding you to a *higher* standard as regards lethal force, not lesser.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sounds to me like police should be required to take comparable representation to those they arrest.

So you want to ban police officers accused of crimes from hiring private attorneys?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Bingo. Certain jobs we reserve to certain classes, to particular types of training. Police officers, as doctors, ought to be held to a higher standard than your average concealed carry permit holder, because of the value we ostensibly place on what they offer to society.

And you think the criminal law should vary depending on how much society should expect from the group the suspect or defendant belongs to? Who will be in charge of ranking groups in terms of how much we should expect from them? I can't wait for that debate.

In a civil context, like medical malpractice, we can talk about "reasonable standards of care" in the medical profession. In the employment context, there should be lots of types of conduct that can get a prosecutor or police officer fired. When we're talking about murder charges, life in prison, or potentially the death penalty, no, you don't get fewer rights if we "expect more" from the group you belong to.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

And you think the criminal law should vary depending on how much society should expect from the group the suspect or defendant belongs to? Who will be in charge of ranking groups in terms of how much we should expect from them? I can't wait for that debate.

Uh, this debate has already taken place for pretty much every industry except the sacred police officers and their guns. If someone came to your house for dinner and got very sick because you didn't wash your hands while cooking the meal, what sanctions would you be expected to pay?

Originally Posted by molson

In a civil context, like medical malpractice, we can talk about "reasonable standards of care" in the medical profession. In the employment context, there should be lots of types of conduct that can get a prosecutor or police officer fired. When we're talking about murder charges, life in prison, or potentially the death penalty, no, you don't get fewer rights if we "expect more" from the group you belong to.

Except we are almost always talking about manslaughter or negligent homicide charges which do not even stick.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Uh, this debate has already taken place for pretty much every industry except the sacred police officers and their guns. If someone came to your house for dinner and got very sick because you didn't wash your hands while cooking the meal, what sanctions would you be expected to pay?

There's some restaurants in my town who have made people sick because of healthcode violations. There were no criminal charges for any of them. That'd be pretty rare and reserved for extreme situations, I imagine. They're definitely more subject to civil and administrative penalties than I would be at my private residence though. Same with healthcare providers. There's a lot of hospitals in my town and they're sued often for medical malpractice and negligence. I wouldn't be sued under the same standards as a private citizen if I was trying to help someone, sure. But there were no criminal charges for the hospitals or doctors involved either. That's also pretty rare. It's hard to make that jump from negligent fuck-ups to criminal conduct with restaurants, healthcare providers, or police officers. It's a grey line in all cases, but one with huge ramifications. And hey, like I said, I'm somebody who wants to put more of the close cases in front of a jury in a criminal case - with all three groups.

[Ned Doolittle]

I often find it weird, and I have no evidence to back this up just a hunch, that women police officers aren't the ones in these "shoot first ask questions later" scenarios. It tends to be male officers (again, I don't know the statistics in these cases it just seems to be that way). Point being while still horrible, a case could be made "oh, it was a female officer who probably felt she couldn't physically handle this guy that's why she had an itchy trigger finger. She got scared." But that doesn't seem to be the case. By and large it's male officers who are in these scenarios. In the case of Baton Rouge they had Alton pinned down. In what world are two male cops who have another man pinned down "in threat of mortal danger"? He's neutralized. In the Minnesota case you have one male cop against another male - does the male cop not have faith in his combat training and ability to use a night stick/mace effectively? Not saying cops needs to be ninja masters, but one vs one you would think the person with physical training, various crowd control weapons (not including his pistol) is a match for any one male. If not, either don't let that male cop join the force or pair him up with a partner.

I'm a big muscular guy, I have confidence in myself that I can handle most any "average" normal guy, give me combat training and a nightstick/mace and my confidence to handle most situations that aren't life or death increases. With physical training and crowd control weapons (night stick/mace) perhaps I can handle one biggish male rather than one average male one on one. My point is these cops, even with their supposed advantage over the average citizen, are still scared to do their job where they are going to the pistol too quickly. And they are so scared they aren't shooting to hurt/shooting to neutralize, they're shooting to kill.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by cartman

Even with the extra training, it is really surprising how low the accuracy is for shots fired by LEOs in real world situations. Less than 25% of shots fired hit the intended target.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

My buddy is a cop over here in Australia, and he always jokes that in an actual situation if you're beyond a few feet you're better off throwing your gun than firing it.

[molson]

I think people would be surprised how little training many U.S. officers get. Those who are really proficient with firearms generally get to that point on their own time.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

So you want to ban police officers accused of crimes from hiring private attorneys?

Way to clip the comment and ignore the admission of snark.

But, yes, I do think it's a concern that when a police officer faces misconduct charges, the union will provide representation for them, and it's often of a caliber that non-police criminal defendants never see.

And that level of attorney coverage will go a lot farther towards getting a case thrown out or charges greatly reduced.

And you think the criminal law should vary depending on how much society should expect from the group the suspect or defendant belongs to? Who will be in charge of ranking groups in terms of how much we should expect from them? I can't wait for that debate.

If you're an agent of the state with the ability to use lethal force, I absolutely expect you to be held to a higher standard. With power comes responsibility, and responsibility is meaningless without accountability.

In a civil context, like medical malpractice, we can talk about "reasonable standards of care" in the medical profession. In the employment context, there should be lots of types of conduct that can get a prosecutor or police officer fired. When we're talking about murder charges, life in prison, or potentially the death penalty, no, you don't get fewer rights if we "expect more" from the group you belong to.

If the group you belong to has legal permission to infringe upon others' rights, then there absolutely SHOULD be a greater expectation, a higher standard of behavior. It's not equal protection under the law if you can shoot me and skate for it because of what your job is.

I agree that there should be standards of misconduct that can get an officer fired and disqualified from further police service.

But if that misconduct ends in the death of a civilian, I absolutely believe the death penalty should be on the table (of course, I feel the same about prosecutorial misconduct when the death penalty is pursued against the defendant; your desire to burnish your credentials for your political career should not turn a railroading into 'merely' a disbarment).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's not equal protection under the law if you can shoot me and skate for it because of what your job is.

It wouldn't be equal protection under the law to reduce rights from defendants based upon their occupation.

Edit: And this kind of sucks in lots of contexts, but as a victim of something like that or any alleged crime, you don't have many rights other than notification and an opportunity to be heard at sentencing. You don't have any rights with respect to how a defendant is charged or not charged.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But if that misconduct ends in the death of a civilian, I absolutely believe the death penalty should be on the table (of course, I feel the same about prosecutorial misconduct when the death penalty is pursued against the defendant; your desire to burnish your credentials for your political career should not turn a railroading into 'merely' a disbarment).

Ironically, a lot of the things you're throwing out here would be prosecutorial misconduct if stated at the closing argument of a trial involving a police officer. If a prosecutor asked a jury to hold the officer defendant "to a higher standard", any conviction would be vacated and there would be a bar inquiry. That would be a relevant consideration at sentencing, but at trials generally we don't condition or deny rights or impose varying burdens of proof based upon group membership.

[NobodyHere]

Well this is interesting

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-harvard-prof/

eta: Harvard study finds no racial bias in police shootings.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

That would be a relevant consideration at sentencing, but at trials generally we don't condition or deny rights or impose varying burdens of proof based upon group membership.

Sure you do. It just runs the other way. It's more difficult to get an indictment against a police officer than against a 'regular' citizen; more difficult to get a conviction against an officer indicted for some variant of homicide than against a 'regular' citizen indicted for some variant of homicide; and sentence passed against police officers hit with felony convictions is 4x less likely to contain jail time than felony convictions for 'regular' citizens.

There absolutely is varying burdens of proof based on group membership. It may not be codified in the law but that is absolutely how the justice system operates.

[cuervo72]

This should also be an interesting case to follow.

Off-duty officer in fatal Brooklyn road-rage shooting stripped of gun and badge | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well this is interesting

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-harvard-prof/

eta: Harvard study finds no racial bias in police shootings.

I wouldn't be that surprised. Many police shootings can be non-fatal, especially when we see the all the evidence that putting a badge on someone doesn't magically transform them into Wyatt Earp, so it's not like they are putting one between the eyes every time they pull their guns out.

What we see time and time again is that being black makes people more likely to think you are some kind of superhuman beast who, even when unarmed, cannot be neutralized with a single gunshot - just look up Darren Wilson's testimony for a textbook example of the kind of language he got coached to use to play into that fear. I'm sure Alton Sterling would have a higher chance of still being alive if officers felt as though one or two, rather than six, gunshots were sufficient to neutralize someone who was already pinned to the ground.

[cuervo72]

Or the 137 shots from the Timothy Russell/Malissa Williams shooting mentioned in one of the Hudson articles.

[panerd]

Gary Johnson salutes Black Lives Matter, says we’ve “had our heads in the sand” over this – Rare

A chance for some of the members of FOFC to see there is actually a forward thinking candidate out there. But Hillary has a D by her name and it's only a two player game right?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by panerd

Gary Johnson salutes Black Lives Matter, says we’ve “had our heads in the sand” over this – Rare

A chance for some of the members of FOFC to see there is actually a forward thinking candidate out there. But Hillary has a D by her name and it's only a two player game right?

Forward thinking in some aspects, way behind the times in others.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Forward thinking in some aspects, way behind the times in others.

Yeah different strokes for different folks and his economics definitely don't support those that love the welfare state but without getting into a whole political discussion he offers the opposite of exactly what I read all over the Internet pisses people off about Trump. He is actually against the police state. What sadly will happen is a lot of votes for go to Clinton on this topic when she differs only from Trump in lack of meaningless rhetoric.

[cartman]

[HomerSimpson98]

Dale Hansen is a giant douche but that was good

[Super Ugly]

That was some powerful stuff. Thanks for sharing.

[cuervo72]

New law makes police cam footage off limits to public | abc11.com

"They think we're trying to hide something and that's not what it is. But if we go into a house for a domestic (assault) and if the wife has been assaulted has been unclothed, we don't want that on YouTube. We don't want that out there."

Totally legit reason!

[nol]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Page Not Found | abc11.com



Totally legit reason!

No big loss. Those darned things have the funniest habit of falling off or malfunctioning every single time an officer kills someone under potentially questionable circumstances.