America sinks into chaos and brutality as police shoot at reporters

[The Lurker Below]

Here the burbs of St. Louis take on the look a third world dictatorship and the people of Palestine are giving the protestors advice on how to deal with rubber bullets and tear gas.

http://rt.com/usa/180168-ferguson-protesters-swat-standoff/

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was anticipating the thread about this. If you can, change the title to reflect it better, I almost skipped past this thread thinking it was about the middle east.

If anyone is following the Ferguson events, you should be disgusted with the militarization of police.

Euro's in here can claim that our guns are no use against our trained military with B-2 bombers. But you can go to hell if you tell me if a bunch of high school bullies in body armour and atv's should be able to scare entire communities and drive away reporters with tear gas.

[Husar]

But you can go to hell if you tell me if a bunch of high school bullies in body armour and atv's should be able to scare entire communities and drive away reporters with tear gas.

Here in Europe, the police would deal with them...

edit: That's also an rt link, it was obviously all made up by Putin.

[Hooahguy]

That article coming from RT kinda tickles me, though that doesnt diminish what is going on.


If #Ferguson was happening in another country the US Military would currently be consdering arming the people against the oppressors.
Wut, this kind of stuff happens all the time, like in Brazil, Venezuela. Typical Anonymous nonsense. Firing tear gas at protesters does not make it like the Egyptian revolution.

:wall:

Also whats with this title? How does this have anything to do with the Palestinians?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Forget the RT article. Just google and there is plenty on the police actions.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/crews-hit-with-bean-bags-tear-gas/14042747/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-gives-account-of-his-arrest/2014/08/13/0fe25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

[Husar]

Yeah, this is what happens when the leftist media try to be smart around those who serve to protect them and risk their lives every day out there on the streets for the safety of their babies.

Should be thankful that those men go out there every day into the thick of the riots and violence and even help the press stay out of harm's way. These are the men who protect your freedom at home, because that is where it's done and not in some 'stan! The very least you could do was finance them the same gear the guys in 'stan wanted but never got because they really need it against riot signs and suicidal cameras.

What were those terrorist riots about anyway?

[Greyblades]

Would be nice if the same people arming the police weren't also selling those arms to the public, makes the monopoly of force harder to maintain.

It would also be nice if the opening post or any of the others actually told us what the heck is going on beyond: "smeg going down in missouri".

Edit: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/ferguson-police-arrest-reporters-as-unrest-continues-over-michael-brown-shooting

Seriously guys, stop it with the half-assed Thread openers, if your not going to tell us what you are talking about you're not going to get meaningful responses.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Could a mod please change the title.

[Husar]

Could a mod please change the title.

I gave it a try but Tiaexz or Proletariat may have a better idea.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Euro's in here can claim that our guns are no use against our trained military with B-2 bombers. But you can go to hell if you tell me if a bunch of high school bullies in body armour and atv's should be able to scare entire communities and drive away reporters with tear gas.

Seems to me the problem is the over-militarisation of the Police, not the under-militarisation of the populace.

anyway, looks like heads are already rolling behind the scenes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28793865

Local Police have essentially been removed and replaced with State Police.

[HoreTore]

I'll bet a few trigger happy fatsoes with handguns would form an impenetrable bulwark against police actions like this.

The 2nd amendment is clearly needed.


Oh, wait. You already have guns, but this stuff still happens? Yeah, clearly guns are the answer. /sarcasm

[The Lurker Below]

I was anticipating the thread about this. If you can, change the title to reflect it better, I almost skipped past this thread thinking it was about the middle east.

If anyone is following the Ferguson events, you should be disgusted with the militarization of police.

Euro's in here can claim that our guns are no use against our trained military with B-2 bombers. But you can go to hell if you tell me if a bunch of high school bullies in body armour and atv's should be able to scare entire communities and drive away reporters with tear gas.

I also expected this thread to be started earlier, but could wait no longer after hearing the news on the radio Wed morning. Palestinians are using social media to instruct the demonstrators in Ferguson on how to deal with tear gas and rubber bullets. The media has taught us in the last decade(ish) that the Palestinians hate us. So I found amusement that they were offering us, or at least the parts of us they believe to be dissidents, sound and helpful advice. SO THATS THE THREAD I STARTED!

I wanted to talk about this ironic turn of events re: Palestinians and you hijacked my thread with serious business.

Is it possible to delete a thread?

[Hooahguy]

Well you really didnt do a good job about the whole "I started a thread to discuss a certain topic" as the title did not accurately reflect the topic at hand.

[Sp4]

What exactly is going on there? People started rioting over someone getting shot by a police officer and now the police is trying to.. I am not sure what are they trying but I guess it is police-y stuff.

[Husar]

What exactly is going on there? People started rioting over someone getting shot by a police officer and now the police is trying to.. I am not sure what are they trying but I guess it is police-y stuff.

I think the police are trying to shoot even more people to make up for only getting one the first time around. And then they tried to silent the press by pretending to help them, which meant firing smoke at them and arresting them at McDonald's restaurants far away from the filthy rioting serfs.

Or that was the case before dictator Obama pretended to care and made the governor of Messerschmissetts or what it's called recall the local army militia police units with their riot sniper machine guns gear and replaced them by state police who actually seem to be terrorist sympathisers and get along with the filthy plebs.

As for the thread title, it could be interpreted in two ways and the link to Palestinians was not obvious from the first post at all, I think we will have to live with a new title now.

[PanzerJaeger]

And so it turns out that the kid was indeed a thug, having just robbed a convenience store before being shot. That same store was later burned down by these animals, which is the real story here. What about the store owner who was robbed and assaulted by Brown and then had his store looted and burned to the ground by his friends? Why did a large number of blacks take this as an opportunity to loot and destroy wholly unrelated private businesses? That's true injustice... Not some street thug that ran out of luck.

While I sympathize with those calling out the militarization of the police and hope that this episode shines a light on the issue, in a lot of these 'communities of color', the cops are essentially zookeepers and I have a hard time faulting them for militarizing in the face of a community so prone to looting and destruction.

[rvg]

I'll bet a few trigger happy fatsoes with handguns would form an impenetrable bulwark against police actions like this...

Damn right it would and it does. Back a few months ago there was this guy in Nevada who got slapped with a 1 million dollar fine for grazing his cattle on federal land. He told the feds to piss off. Naturally, feds seized most of his cattle. The guy didn't take kindly to that and decided to stage a protest with a couple of dozen supporters, most of them armed. He got his cattle back and continues to wipe his ass with the federal fine. So yes, you can get much further with a kind word and a gun.

Cops are cowards. They're good at using force on those who cannot fight back. Whenever there's a serious possibility of getting hit with return fire cops immediately become far more diplomatic and far less likely to indiscriminately shoot/arrest people. Guns have that effect even when no shots are fired. If anything, having guns both sides makes it more likely that no shots will be fired.
Either that, or a 100/1 protester/cop ratio. That works as well, but in the absence of numbers guns are great force multipliers.

[HoreTore]

Damn right it would and it does.

You already have guns.

Stuff happened.

Your argument is invalid.

[rvg]

You already have guns.

Stuff happened.

Your argument is invalid.

Who exactly is this "You"? Me? No. The guy who got shot? No. The protesters? No. Who is it then?

[HoreTore]

Who exactly is this "You"? Me? No. The guy who got shot? No. The protesters? No. Who is it then?

The protesters are not Americans? They are not allowed to carry guns?

[rvg]

The protesters are not Americans? They are not allowed to carry guns?

I can't shoot you with my right to bear arms. I need an actual firearm.

[HoreTore]

I can't shoot you with my right to bear arms. I need an actual firearm.

Ah, so the 2nd amendment is meaningless? It simply doesn't prevent government abuses?

[rvg]

Ah, so the 2nd amendment is meaningless? It simply doesn't prevent government abuses?

No more or less meaningless than the 1st amendment. Amendments do not prevent government abuses. People do.

[HoreTore]

No more or less meaningless than the 1st amendment. Amendments do not prevent government abuses. People do.

Ah, yes, people most certainly do.

Guns don't.

[rvg]

Walmart sells guns, and these communities have gun-shops on every corner next door to the liquor stores, I have heard.

And? They can be gun shop owners, but unless they actually brought guns en masse to the protest, their right to bear arms would not prevent the cops from brutalizing them.

[rvg]

I am sure they could move away, collect said weapons and return.

They could do lots of things. The point being that at the time of the protests they were unarmed and thus gave the cops every incentive to commence with the general beatdown. Cops hate protesters whom they cannot control, but they hate dying in the line of duty even more.

[Don Corleone]

Very unfortunate incident. I have a great deal of compassion for the people of Ferguson caught up in all of this. Before you get all worked up one way or the other, ask yourself what it's like to be a 9 year old kid living in the midst of all of this. :help:

Militarization of the police and the suspension of most of the 4th ammendment provisions is a separate issue from this thread, but clearly warranting a discussion. It can't be easy to be a lawman these days, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration for them. But there are rampant abuses out there that need to be addressed.

Finally, on point of the original post... I agree. I'm stunned that the Palestinians are taking to Social Media to encourage Americans and offer practical advice for dealing with crackdowns. No commentary on any of their relative positions, I am touched by their compassion and sense of human family. Very interesting indeed.

[Greyblades]

And so it turns out that the kid was indeed a thug, having just robbed a convenience store before being shot. That same store was later burned down by these animals, which is the real story here. What about the store owner who was robbed and assaulted by Brown and then had his store looted and burned to the ground by his friends? Why did a large number of blacks take this as an opportunity to loot and destroy unrelated private businesses?

While I sympathize with those calling out the militarization of the police and hope that this episode shines a light on the issue, in a lot of these 'communities of color', the cops are essentially zookeepers and I have a hard time faulting them for militarizing in the face of a community so prone to looting and destruction.

Oh I dont know, It's hard to not fault them them considering it was their mismanagement, abuse of power and general neglect over the course of american history that caused the 'communities of colour' to be as bad as they are now.

[ReluctantSamurai]

It is wholly unacceptable, but there seems no drive to reverse the trend

Actually, the trend has come full circle. This sort of police action happened all too frequently back in the anti-'Nam protest days....

[PanzerJaeger]

Touching video of Michael Brown's last moments, before he was martyred in the name of American racism. Why does our society continue to stereotype young black males as prone to criminal behavior?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHxXGvXQrno

[Fisherking]

And so it turns out that the kid was indeed a thug, having just robbed a convenience store before being shot. That same store was later burned down by these animals, which is the real story here. What about the store owner who was robbed and assaulted by Brown and then had his store looted and burned to the ground by his friends? Why did a large number of blacks take this as an opportunity to loot and destroy wholly unrelated private businesses? That's true injustice... Not some street thug that ran out of luck.

While I sympathize with those calling out the militarization of the police and hope that this episode shines a light on the issue, in a lot of these 'communities of color', the cops are essentially zookeepers and I have a hard time faulting them for militarizing in the face of a community so prone to looting and destruction.

Not exactly the story I heard.

When they released the name of the officer involved they said he was responding to a robbery and Brown fit the general description. Not that he was the perpetrator. They did say that the officer was treated for injuries sustained on Saturday, but gave no details of what they were or when or where they were sustained.

If you have more details give us a link and fill us in.

Meantime, they still have not interviewed the man who says he was with Brown at the time and considering the claim that he may have been a robbery suspect it would seem something they would have wanted to do, if it is true.

Usually the police just say the individual tried to grab may gun.

There is never a good excuse for looting or arson.

Like you I am worried about the rest of the response.
There is also no excuse for many of the police have done. I don’t think we need a laundry list.

The rate of shooting by police is the worrying part as well as their militarization and proliferation of armored vehicles and heavy weaponry. And this is not just in high crime areas. You can find it in almost any town or county across the country.

The attitude of police just about everywhere has become more aggressive. The training and response much more military with a tendency to escalate violence rather than prevent it.

[Strike For The South]

Good Riddance to bad rubbish

And lets burn our neighborhood to boot

And lets protest by looting auto body shops.

This is not a protest, this a riot.

I also don't know when this became about the militarization of the police. Another kid gets shot and the neighborhood starts eating itself.

[PanzerJaeger]

In the vein of MLK's March on Washington, the black community in Ferguson reacts to the repression and injustice of institutional racism manifested each day in gas stations and convenience stores across America.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwVdvfmxeJQ

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
Cops are cowards. They're good at using force on those who cannot fight back. ....

You really need to back the _____off. Yes, there have been police who have mis-used force through poor training, poor decision-making, and sometimes a streak of sadism that slipped through all the screening programs.

The large bulk of police officers are neither cowards nor heroes. They are called to service because they like order, or want to catch bad guys, or like authority, or want to...believe it or not....protect and serve. They then get to rub elbows with the most amoral, they work long hours under ever present threat, they never know when the next call is somebody who wants to commit suicide by cop and doesn't mind killing a cop or two to make that happen. Into the bargain, most of them are treated with less respect than people give their dentists -- and you wonder where the jadedness comes from? Why too many cops adopt a "cop versus them" mentality? If anything I am proud of how few of them succumb to it.

So is there too much militarization...Yes. Are too many cops abusing their power...yes, even though it is a small percentage it worsens the problem. Are we in need of some fresh thinking where policing comes in....absolutely.

But that "coward" kisses her children goodbye and unlike my fat academic ass she ALWAYS has to wonder in the back of her mind if it is goodbye and not see you later. Just like that 19 year old who was more interested in college benefits and a way out his slack neighborhood than in patrolling some hill on the side of the Khyber pass -- some of them get jaded by circumstance, make damn fool choices, or even does something he knows is wrong.

You'd do better to show a touch of sympathy and focus on the systemic issues that create the problem rather than lashing out with the bovine-excrement cowardice charges.

[rvg]

You'd do better to show a touch of sympathy and focus on the systemic issues that create the problem rather than lashing out with the bovine-excrement cowardice charges.

Hey, to each their own. You've had your experiences with cops and I've had mine. To be perfectly honest from my experiences, I hate their guts. There's too much scum there who are looking to abuse people around them while totally immune from retaliation by the virtue of having a badge. Furthermore, they cover up for one another and do everything to prevent the really rotten ones from being rooted out. Your experiences may vary, but that doesn't invalidate mine.

[PanzerJaeger]

The large bulk of police officers are neither cowards nor heroes. They are called to service because they like order, or want to catch bad guys, or like authority, or want to...believe it or not....protect and serve.

The canonization of the police is just as bad, if not worse, than that of Michael Brown. The primary driver in law enforcement employment is economic. It offers well above average pay/benefits/pensions for a below average education level and skill set. These people are certainly not our best and brightest, and would be working in factories or warehouses otherwise.

It's a union job in an era when union jobs are hard to come by. The power of those unions allows officers to work only as hard as they wish and get away with all manner of malfeasance with little risk of termination. They also happen to be driving many of our largest metropolitan areas into bankruptcy, and this kind of glorification gives them the clout to do so.

Cops are government workers no different than those who work at the DMV or any other bureaucratic dredge of an agency and should be thought of as such. They are certainly not deserving of reverence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The riots are absolutely disgusting and it looks like the kid was not a Saint. I guess I am the only one who really wanted to make this about police militarization. So I will just leave that topic with this. For all of those armored ATVs and ar-15s, I would have figured they could have stopped the ladies foot locker from being looted. Pretty sure there are plenty of videos on YouTube where Korean store owners protected their property during the LA riots with just a few handguns.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The whole thing sounds a lot like what happened in the UK with the police shooting of Mark Duggan and the riots that followed.

It was the same story of police with an itchy trigger finger, shooting a black guy who turned out to be far from a saint, and prompting a protest against police brutality/racism that soon descended into violence and looting.

Just as with Duggan's case, there are faults all round in this American scenario, but the militarization of the police should be the biggest concern to come out of all this. Why is it that your police look far less like a police force than they do an army?

[HoreTore]

Why is it that your police look far less like a police force than they do an army?

Three words:

Tough on crime.


America screams for more punishment. This incident is the natural result of that wish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Three words:

Tough on crime.


America screams for more punishment. This incident is the natural result of that wish.
Personally I would say economics is the reason. Tough on crime is directed towards harsher sentencing and minimum punishment for even basic pot possession. It's aimed at keeping people in jail not armament of police. The draw down over seas and economic down turns are the biggest factors IMO.

[Ironside]

Good Riddance to bad rubbish

And lets burn our neighborhood to boot

And lets protest by looting auto body shops.

This is not a protest, this a riot.

I also don't know when this became about the militarization of the police. Another kid gets shot and the neighborhood starts eating itself.

Probably around the time the Ferguson police had less in common with American soldiers peacekeeping in Afghanistan/Iraq, than outright jackboot occupation. They're in assult gear, not riot gear and have an attitude taken from the textbook "How to make the population fear, mistrust and hate me".
It also leaves quite a bit of credibility about the accusations that the original peaceful protests were provoked and aggressivly met (also known as how to provoke a riot).

It doesn't help that the Ferguson police got a credible rep of being abusive and racist (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html#).


Just as with Duggan's case, there are faults all round in this American scenario, but the militarization of the police should be the biggest concern to come out of all this. Why is it that your police look far less like a police force than they do an army?

Mostly the Iraqi war. The police are outright given or sold military equipment very cheaply. And if you have that gear, then you want to use it, even when it has no purpose in the police normally.

That explains the looks, but not the attitude (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Firstly it sounds to me like the "young man" probably should have been shot. Based on the character hit-piece, this was a massive scumbag who liked to rob convenience stores openly, get aggressive and then intimidate little old Indian men who had just been robbed. It isn't a far stretch to assume that he would have become absurdly aggressive with police when confronted with a mild infraction and possibly gone for their holster. Its a terrible situation that people put themselves into a persona that needs to be "put down" like a dog to protect other people from being hurt or killed over things a as absurd as a handful of slimjims.

Secondly, the heavy handed response to the protests surrounding this shooting are totally unacceptable. Heavily armed police do nothing to calm situations down, if anything they exacerbate them. Those guys should probably be on standby, but actual people who look like they belong in the community are the best face to help the crowd run out of steam. AR's and APC's are wildly overkill. Targeting the press and suppressing coverage are unconstitutional and a national disgrace.

[HoreTore]

Firstly it sounds to me like the "young man" probably should have been shot.

Isn't it the job of the courts to decide that....?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't it the job of the courts to decide that....?

I can't unlike your post for some reason, I meant to respond to it.

Maybe, but when a police officer makes a credible allegation that someone went for their gun and was attempting to overtake a police officer due to a jay walking citation, they should automatically need to be taken to court and have their life ruined. If they made a mistake and escalated a situation then yes, possibly.

[HoreTore]

I can't unlike your post for some reason, I meant to respond to it.

Maybe, but when a police officer makes a credible allegation that someone went for their gun and was attempting to overtake a police officer due to a jay walking citation, they should automatically need to be taken to court and have their life ruined. If they made a mistake and escalated a situation then yes, possibly.

So you want the police to be able to act as a court and jury, as well as decide for themselves which situations that is, within a basic framework provided by the legislative?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't unlike your post for some reason, I meant to respond to it.

Once you click the thanks button on the bottom left, there is a line which appears that says "Remove Your Thanks" on the right side of the post that you can click.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Once you click the thanks button on the bottom left, there is a line which appears that says "Remove Your Thanks" on the right side of the post that you can click.

In Tapatalk,, it isn't working for some reason. It usually does.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So you want the police to be able to act as a court and jury, as well as decide for themselves which situations that is, within a basic framework provided by the legislative?

In the US, a court case is a guilty verdict. Someone who has done nothing wrong is ruined financially and destroyed on a technicality of needing to bring everything to court.

If there is suspicion of illegal action, court case should ensue. If not, it is merely a cruel and unnecessary punishment against someone defending their life. I believe in stand your ground laws and protocols that resemble them - for all citizens, including police.

For example, the Trayvon case was not treated as a stand your ground case because it involved an individual acting as the aggressor in a way that threatened Martin and was not prescribed by law. I agree that that case should have been taken to court, even though the shooter was acquired (also the right result).

Some level of impunity should be given to those defending their lives in such a situation that would warrant it.

[HoreTore]

https://s24.postimg.org/zcy1vha91/52966d98d617deb0f12c2ed676991859fae66e64252a089b.jpg

[Ironside]

Firstly it sounds to me like the "young man" probably should have been shot. Based on the character hit-piece, this was a massive scumbag who liked to rob convenience stores openly, get aggressive and then intimidate little old Indian men who had just been robbed. It isn't a far stretch to assume that he would have become absurdly aggressive with police when confronted with a mild infraction and possibly gone for their holster. Its a terrible situation that people put themselves into a persona that needs to be "put down" like a dog to protect other people from being hurt or killed over things a as absurd as a handful of slimjims.


Are you summoning the spirit of the cop in question? Besides, there's more than one indication (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-user-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson)that he needed very long arms for that. It's quite probable that the police behavior on both matters are linked.

[Tellos Athenaios]

In Tapatalk,, it isn't working for some reason. It usually does.

That's because you're so very wrong even an inanimate piece of software knows it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you summoning the spirit of the cop in question? Besides, there's more than one indication (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-user-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson)that he needed very long arms for that. It's quite probable that the police behavior on both points are linked.

A hearing isn't out of the question, although courts are like a black hole which sucks everything in.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People have a right to stop those who present a serious danger to their lives with lethal force. I don't want to see anyone punished for that.

You don't have the right to take people to criminal court when they have done nothing illegal just to placate the family of the deceased. Let that family attempt a civil suit.

[HoreTore]

People have a right to stop those who present a serious danger to their lives with lethal force. I don't want to see anyone punished for that.

You don't have the right to take people to court when they have done nothing illegal just to placate the family of the deceased.

The problem is that you give the police the ability to both carry out the action AND determine whether or not the action was appropriate.

That screws with everything we know about separation of powers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem is that you give the police the ability to both carry out the action AND determine whether or not the action was appropriate.

That screws with everything we know about separation of powers.

The DA makes the determination to prosecute or not, right. Also, the Governor's office could decide to investigate.

I'm not saying don't investigate, I'm just saying that you can't bring it to criminal court unless the DA is charging the officer with a crime.

[Ironside]

People have a right to stop those who present a serious danger to their lives with lethal force. I don't want to see anyone punished for that.

People also has the right to have their own death properly investigated. And by properly investigated, it shouldn't be done by people that lies and makes up charges. Unlike the Ferguson police (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html#). I mean, discounting their stated lie, it's quite obvious that they also did the assult. And the spite charge with a felony isn't exactly positive relation building.

And that the protesters there mistrusts the police is quite obvious (of course the new guy in charge seems to actually read about relation building).

[ICantSpellDawg]

People also has the right to have their own death properly investigated. And by properly investigated, it shouldn't be done by people that lies and makes up charges. Unlike the Ferguson police (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html#). I mean, discounting their stated lie, it's quite obvious that they also did the assult. And the spite charge with a felony isn't exactly positive relation building.

And that the protesters there mistrusts the police is quite obvious (of course the new guy in charge seems to actually read about relation building).

Completely understood and accepted. Let there be an investigation, and most likely let that be the end of it. The officer is presumed innocent and with an anecdotal understanding of the kind of massive degenerate he was dealing with, I hope that the community can fix their horrible child/parent problem. This will make it much easier to fix their horrible police problem.

I blame American slave history first
American black culture second
American criminal justice third.

You euroweenies have probably seen a handful of black people in your lives. Some of them are wonderful people, but not all of them are Will Smith, Oprah, and Barack Obama. It is mind blowing to see what their lives are like and how many American Blacks react to the world around them. It is something that is alien to most peoples understanding of the normal human response to stimuli.

Living near the largest black population in North America opens your eyes to the nuances of the problems that exist. In some ways NYC is a great example, in some ways it is horrifying.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Cops are government workers no different than those who work at the DMV or any other bureaucratic dredge of an agency and should be thought of as such. They are certainly not deserving of reverence.

Reverence...no. Respect....yes. Most law enforcement officers I've had contact with are decent, level-headed individuals. To say that they are no different than someone who pushes papers for a living is rubbish. Every time an officer pulls over a motorist, or answers a domestic violence call, or any other daily activity that they are required to do, they put their lives at risk. Can any of you trashing cops say the same? Because if you can't, you need to shut the hell up and take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Are there "bad" cops? Certainly, but when you are dealing with the dregs of society on a daily basis, it's difficult to keep a sane, level head. That so many more law enforcement officers do than don't, is enough to warrant respect, if nothing else.


The primary driver in law enforcement employment is economic. It offers well above average pay/benefits/pensions for a below average education level and skill set.

How many law enforcement officers have you known in your life? I'd be very surprised if it was even one. I would also like to see some sort of numbers to back up the part in bold.

In my community (east side Detroit), there is an officer present at every community meeting to hear complaints from local residents and to help plan out courses of action. Every single one of these officers is a family man or woman with neighborhood concerns of their own. And every morning they put on that uniform and go to work, it might be the last time they kiss their spouse and children goodbye.

Again...reverence? No. Respect...you're damn right:soapbox:

[HoreTore]

The DA makes the determination to prosecute or not, right. Also, the Governor's office could decide to investigate.

I'm not saying don't investigate, I'm just saying that you can't bring it to criminal court unless the DA is charging the officer with a crime.

Uhm, what? That would be pretty damn obvious, wouldn't it? Of course I meant following a normal investigation. I thought that would've been obvious, since my argument rested on following standard procedure?

I got the impression that you did not want the normal procedure to happen, and that the decision should rest with the officer in question.

If that's not the case, then I suppose all of this was a misunderstanding. I'm happy with that.


Also, I must admit that all of my posting was mostly an baiting to use the "Hitler approves"-picture.....

[rvg]

Also, I must admit that all of my posting was mostly an baiting to use the "Hitler approves"-picture.....

You could have just started a thread on vegetarianism for that.

[HoreTore]

You could have just started a thread on vegetarianism for that.

That would expose me to the possibility of having to communicate with a veggie...

[Greyblades]

Firstly it sounds to me like the "young man" probably should have been shot.

...He stole some stuff and pushed a guy on his way out, and that deserves death to you. The hell is wrong with you?

[rajpoot]

Did he deserve to be shot the way he was? No.
Was a he a scumbag? Clearly yes.
By what I've understood from reading the news the 'victim' brazenly robbed a store and then decided to take a stroll in the middle of the street. The surveillance video from the store clearly shows him to be a thug. The main eyewitness account about what happened is from his pal, who was a part of the crime, so one has to wonder how far can one trust his word.
The officer in question is supposed to have an impeccable record for the past six years. Not the kind of man who would shoot someone on a whim.
So on one side we have a person who is a brazen thug and on the other side a respectable police officer. Personally I'm inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the officer before I start yelling 'justice for the thug'.

[Greyblades]

Any respectability the officer might have had went out the window when he shot a man over a bunch of convinience store goods. And dont say he was too dangerous to arrest, he was unarmed and a police officer unable to safely bring down a weaponless thug, especially one stupid enough to make such a brazen daylight robbery, has no business being on any police force.

[rajpoot]

We don't know for certain that the man did not try to strongarm the officer. We don't know for certain that he wasn't stupid enough to try and wrest the weapon from the officer, or did not try and physically intimidate him as he had done with the store clerk.
Right now it's all up in the air. Maybe the officer overreacted. But also maybe the thug tried to assault the officer, who shot him in self defence.

[rajpoot]

Too heavy handed for peaceful protesters sure.
They should have just singled out the looters and the arsonists and used the rubber bullets and tear gas on them. Maybe should've also thrown them in the lockup for a day for good measure.

[ICantSpellDawg]

...He stole some stuff and pushed a guy on his way out, and that deserves death to you. The hell is wrong with you?

No, that doesn't mean he deserves death. Being that kind of guy and going for a police officer's gun means death. Like it or not, in the US, if you threaten someone with deadly force you can find yourself shot and killed.

That is one of my favorite things about this country. Police State stuff is crap.

[Greyblades]

In the days of smart guns and trick holsters this should be irrelevant, if a police officer is unable to subdue a thug without using his gun he should not be on the streets, no exceptions. That he used lethal force on a petty thief is inexcusable deserved condemnation not sympathy and most certainly not endorsement.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I googled it and I still don't know what a smart gun or a trick holster is.

[Greyblades]

If you actually had googled it you would have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun

As for the trick holster it's a holster that needs to be pulled at in a correct way to release the gun, a specific twist or something, so someone other than the owner trying to draw it would be unable to, I dont know the official name is but I saw several on sale at the gun range I visited once when I was in new york.

[Ironside]

Did he deserve to be shot the way he was? No.
Was a he a scumbag? Clearly yes.
By what I've understood from reading the news the 'victim' brazenly robbed a store and then decided to take a stroll in the middle of the street. The surveillance video from the store clearly shows him to be a thug. The main eyewitness account about what happened is from his pal, who was a part of the crime, so one has to wonder how far can one trust his word.
The officer in question is supposed to have an impeccable record for the past six years. Not the kind of man who would shoot someone on a whim.
So on one side we have a person who is a brazen thug and on the other side a respectable police officer. Personally I'm inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the officer before I start yelling 'justice for the thug'.

I shouldn't take too much faith in the spotless record. They wrote their own record until 2010.

And the new police chief, who introduced the changes, are the same guy that was informed by media (and went WTF?!) that his police forces had arrested two journalists. He does not have high influence amoung his own police forces, quite probably because they don't like that he wants them to act as a proper police, instead of justice vigilantes.

And the police has confirmed that Michel Brown died 10 meters (30 feet) from the car.

You also got that nice racist spiral in the US. The cops thinks like ICSD, gets trigger happy and avoid punishment (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/15/will-there-be-accountabilityformikebrownsdeath.html), the blacks feel somewhat unwanted by society and ends up being unwanted by society, thus justifying the thinking of ICSD.

Stuff like racial profiling doesn't help. In Ferguson, about 93% of all arrested in car stops 2013 were black. Sounds extreme? It's helped by 86% of all stops are on cars driven by blacks. Looking on induvidual statistics, about 5% of the white and 10% of the blacks are arrested.
That means, if the stopped numbers were 50/50, 66% of the arrested would be black, aka 2x the number of whites. The number of arrests are 13x the number.
So racial profiling is effiecient to get the most arrests through least searches, but it's going to influence both the public (the police really are out to get them because they're black) and the police (it's going to go from blacks being better at comitting crimes to almost all crimes are comitted by blacks).

Dataset. Source is picture from twitter from CNN.



stops
searches
arrests


total
5384
611
521


white
686
47
36


black
4632
562
483


other
66
2
2

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you actually had googled it you would have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun

As for the trick holster it's a holster that needs to be pulled at in a correct way to release the gun, a specific twist or something, so someone other than the owner trying to draw it would be unable to, I dont know the official name is but I saw several on sale at the gun range I visited once when I was in new york.
So basically the smart gun is the kind of thing that bond has in skyfall where only he can shoot it?

[rajpoot]

So basically the smart gun is the kind of thing that bond has in skyfall where only he can shoot it?

Or like the Lawgiver in the latest Dredd movie which explodes when the drug dealer tries to use it to execute the trainee judge.
Ironside
Thank you for the stats. I have a slight headache though so I will be grateful if you could summarize the point you're making. :bow:
At the moment the only thing I can infer is that the police have a good knack for judging whom to search after stopping them. And that maybe they should start stopping more white people?

[Husar]

Or like the Lawgiver in the latest Dredd movie which explodes when the drug dealer tries to use it to execute the trainee judge.
Ironside
Thank you for the stats. I have a slight headache though so I will be grateful if you could summarize the point you're making. :bow:
At the moment the only thing I can infer is that the police have a good knack for judging whom to search after stopping them. And that maybe they should start stopping more white people?

I think he is saysing that currently they arrest 13 black people for every white person they arrest.
But if they stopped as many white people as black people, threy would only arrest 2 black people for every white person they arrest.

Of course that theory would require that the white people who are currently not being stopped have the same rate of detectable criminals among them as the ones who are currently being stopped.

As for the shooting, was the cop alone, and if yes, why? Why can't every cop car have a mandatory minimum of two cops inside? That would lower their stress levels as they have a partner to help and make arrests a lot easier as well. Plus it would discourage criminals from trying something as overwhelming one cop would not help them a lot with the partner giving cover.

I'm aware that it doesn't stop police brutality, but I think it could still reduce the number of nasty police on citizen/criminal incidents.
I've seen very few policemen run around alone here, don't remember ever seeing a car with just one officer inside.

[ICantSpellDawg]

P
If you actually had googled it you would have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun

As for the trick holster it's a holster that needs to be pulled at in a correct way to release the gun, a specific twist or something, so someone other than the owner trying to draw it would be unable to, I dont know the official name is but I saw several on sale at the gun range I visited once when I was in new york.

Police using these "trick holsters" usually opt for something as simple as the Serpa. A one finger button that needs to be depressed in order to pull.

There are other, higher level holsters, but most departments don't require too many layers of twist/button combo. Smart guns are currently made in .22 LR only and are only even sensible for law enforcement. They pose almost no benefit for anyone else as their safety features will be deactivated by anyone with a screwdriver. Police departments wont even adopt them because of their absurdly high failure rate. Anything with a biometric scan is way to expensive and pointless.

Long story short, a gun isn't that complicated. It is a metal tube with a handle, a trigger type thing and a firing pin. If you think a smart gun will save anyone you are drinking the koolaid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is an argument to be made for not issuing firearms to street cops. My wife, having done curriculum development at a police academy, confirmed for me that a lot of their defensive tactics training centers around protecting their own weapon from being taken and used against them....which has happened too often in the past. Absent a firearm, the police officer still has a number of weapons at their disposal.

On the other hand, facing a criminal with a firearm of their own, the police officer without one is at a decided disadvantage.

Trick holsters don't stay "tricky" very long. We tend to think our street criminals are stupid....this is not accurate. Many of them are adaptive, intelligent, willing to learn trick holsters and workarounds for smart guns and ways to crack into atms etc. They are ignorant of what we view as education....not stupid.

[Greyblades]

First Smart guns are there to make sure thugs cant turn policemen's guns on them just by grabbing them out of the holster, that someone can get past one after a few minutes with a screwdriver is irrelevant because no policeman is going to wait around for them to do some impromptu conversion. Also not all of them use biometrics, the magnetic bracelet is both cheap and reliable, that police dont use them is thier decision.
Second: this is all pointless because we dont know if the thief was trying to take the officer's gun when he was shot. That being said: considering that such a struggle hasn't been claimed at this point, despite being a get-of-shitstorm card, it is reasonable to conclude that the policeman wasn't in any danger of having his own weapon turned on him when he shot Michael Brown. Which brings us back to the overwhelming probability that a police officer shot a man he most certainly should have been capable of taking alive.

Something is rotten in the state of missouri, and blaming the victim like some of you have been is beyond disgusting.

[Kadagar_AV]

I wonder what force would win... NYPD vs Swedish Army.

I think it's a toss up.

[lars573]

Swedish Army has tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters. NYPD doesn't, so they lose.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Swedish Army has tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters. NYPD doesn't, so they lose.

No tanks, but they do have armored cars and both the bell 412's and AW-119s could be kitted out for attack or combat transport helo duty. While the NYPD is not known to possess artillery, there are dozens of former military artillerists serving in the NYPD and there is a half battalion of towed 155's in Jamaica that could be quickly obtained. They are short of air superiority aircraft.....

[Ironside]

Or like the Lawgiver in the latest Dredd movie which explodes when the drug dealer tries to use it to execute the trainee judge.
Ironside
Thank you for the stats. I have a slight headache though so I will be grateful if you could summarize the point you're making. :bow:
At the moment the only thing I can infer is that the police have a good knack for judging whom to search after stopping them. And that maybe they should start stopping more white people?

Pretty much. What happens is that blacks goes from being notably more common as criminals, to being almost all criminals. And if you know from your biased working experience that criminals=black, it's quite easy to go to black=criminals=scum. And then you get those nice abuse incidents and a police that acts like an occupation army failing big on peace keeping.


I wonder what force would win... NYPD vs Swedish Army.

I think it's a toss up.

Cops doesn't get training in military tactics. So the parts of the Swedish army that got decent training would maul whatever SWAT team that shows up (I'm sure when it comes to quickly raiding a non-trapped building, the SWAT wins), and as lars pointed out, even a strf 90 is very, very hard for even the militarised US police to stop.

Edit: Numbers is going to be an issue for the tiny Swedish army though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No tanks, but they do have armored cars and both the bell 412's and AW-119s could be kitted out for attack or combat transport helo duty. While the NYPD is not known to possess artillery, there are dozens of former military artillerists serving in the NYPD and there is a half battalion of towed 155's in Jamaica that could be quickly obtained. They are short of air superiority aircraft.....

EDIT: The NYPD has more uniformed officers than the Swedish army has combat soldiers -- though this reverses if you count the Swedish territorials. Overall, the NYPD's 53k uniformed and support is roughly equal to the 50k combat/support forces in their army.

[Pannonian]

Reverence...no. Respect....yes. Most law enforcement officers I've had contact with are decent, level-headed individuals. To say that they are no different than someone who pushes papers for a living is rubbish. Every time an officer pulls over a motorist, or answers a domestic violence call, or any other daily activity that they are required to do, they put their lives at risk. Can any of you trashing cops say the same? Because if you can't, you need to shut the hell up and take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Are there "bad" cops? Certainly, but when you are dealing with the dregs of society on a daily basis, it's difficult to keep a sane, level head. That so many more law enforcement officers do than don't, is enough to warrant respect, if nothing else.



How many law enforcement officers have you known in your life? I'd be very surprised if it was even one. I would also like to see some sort of numbers to back up the part in bold.

In my community (east side Detroit), there is an officer present at every community meeting to hear complaints from local residents and to help plan out courses of action. Every single one of these officers is a family man or woman with neighborhood concerns of their own. And every morning they put on that uniform and go to work, it might be the last time they kiss their spouse and children goodbye.

Again...reverence? No. Respect...you're damn right:soapbox:

I'm glad I live in the UK and not the US. I've walked through the supposed badlands of London, and it was little different from walking in the park.

[rvg]

I'm glad I live in the UK and not the US. I've walked through the supposed badlands of London, and it was little different from walking in the park.
Regularly?

[Pannonian]

Regularly?

Not regularly, no.

[Slyspy]

I'm glad I live in the UK and not the US. I've walked through the supposed badlands of London, and it was little different from walking in the park.

Yes, you get mugged in the park too! Ba-ba-dum!

Seriously I don't get the "they shot one of ours so lets loot this electrical store" thing. That isn't a protest, it is another crime commited.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First Smart guns are there to make sure thugs cant turn policemen's guns on them just by grabbing them out of the holster, that someone can get past one after a few minutes with a screwdriver is irrelevant because no policeman is going to wait around for them to do some impromptu conversion. Also not all of them use biometrics, the magnetic bracelet is both cheap and reliable, that police dont use them is thier decision.
Second: this is all pointless because we dont know if the thief was trying to take the officer's gun when he was shot. That being said: considering that such a struggle hasn't been claimed at this point, despite being a get-of-shitstorm card, it is reasonable to conclude that the policeman wasn't in any danger of having his own weapon turned on him when he shot Michael Brown. Which brings us back to the overwhelming probability that a police officer shot a man he most certainly should have been capable of taking alive.

Something is rotten in the state of missouri, and blaming the victim like some of you have been is beyond disgusting.
It is hard to explain when you have not lived here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They do these days. There's hardly a police department in the country that doesn't have a bunch of combat veterans on their SWAT team. There's definitely not a well-funded police force in the country that doesn't have a SWAT team trained in house-clearing the military way.

Not in NY. Until they came with me, neither of my nypd buddies (who have been on the force for years) had fired a rife or shotgun. They are taught to cross their arm over their chests to protect vitals. Occasionally, certain detectives and swat type officers are given cq clearing training, but it is pretty sparse.

Contrary to popular understanding, many hardened criminals have more firearms training than officers. Most officers seem to qualify to a minimal extent annually.

[Hooahguy]

Not in NY. Until they came with me, neither of my nypd buddies (who have been on the force for years) had fired a rife or shotgun. They are taught to cross their arm over their chests to protect vitals. Occasionally, certain detectives and swat type officers are given cq clearing training, but it is pretty sparse.

Contrary to popular understanding, many hardened criminals have more firearms training than officers. Most officers seem to qualify to a minimal extent annually.

What you said was apparent in that botched shooting at the Empire State Building where nine people were injured by ricochets from police guns. I remember it coming out that the average NYPD officer is so busy that they only have to go to the firing range a few times a year, and that includes qualification. So it really is no surprise that they arent very good shots. SWAT, on the other hand, I would expect are not normal cops when there isnt an emergency and are better trained.

Even so, they are kinda famous for dumb mistakes. Like putting on their rifle sight backwards. (https://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa221/toobmonkey/eotech_zps86f85aec.jpg) Even though it was an upstate NY SWAT officer, I think the point still stands.

[lars573]

No tanks, but they do have armored cars and both the bell 412's and AW-119s could be kitted out for attack or combat transport helo duty. While the NYPD is not known to possess artillery, there are dozens of former military artillerists serving in the NYPD and there is a half battalion of towed 155's in Jamaica that could be quickly obtained. They are short of air superiority aircraft.....
Do they have any shells available quickly? And those kinds of helo's could be brought down by small arms fire.


EDIT: The NYPD has more uniformed officers than the Swedish army has combat soldiers -- though this reverses if you count the Swedish territorials. Overall, the NYPD's 53k uniformed and support is roughly equal to the 50k combat/support forces in their army.
Not quite. The Swedish army has 8 combat battalions and 19 support 50k strength. The NYPD has 35000 uniformed officers, if you see numbers higher than that it's been inflated by including the not fully trained, not allowed a gun under any circumstances, not actually cops auxiliaries and support staff. Hard truth is that even the most anemic euro weenie army would wipe the floor with the police departments from any of the major US cities. They might have a bunch of military gear, but not enough people with the training to use it in battle effectively. Have you watched TDKR? :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

How many law enforcement officers have you known in your life? I'd be very surprised if it was even one. I would also like to see some sort of numbers to back up the part in bold.

I thought this was common knowledge, but here (http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=965&issue_id=82006) you go - from a law enforcement periodical no less. No one who could be a microbiologist goes into law enforcement, at least not at the beat cop level.


Compare these standards with the educational requirements of a typical police officer: a high school diploma or GED, followed by less than six months of academy training and several months of field training at the expense of the police department. Until we raise these requirements, many will refuse to see policing as a profession.

Low educational requirements not only diminish the prestige of policing but also prevent police from meeting the high expectations of the people who invest heavily in each police officer position. In California, salary and benefit costs can easily exceed $130,000 per officer per year. At this rate, many taxpayers and elected officials expect officers to have more than just high school diplomas. And they also expect much more from the police departments that employ them.

So... pretty much the same standards as Wal-Mart. The only thing separating the police and the criminals they pursue is a badge, at least socioeconomically.



And every morning they put on that uniform and go to work, it might be the last time they kiss their spouse and children goodbye.


Stop... Just stop. This is the kind of unwarranted veneration that has allowed the police to run roughshod over local administrations across the nation. Chicago cannot make important infrastructure investments for the future because it's stuck in a seemingly never ending pension quagmire, largely driven by the voracious appetite of the local police union and city politicians that do not dare challenge these everyday heroes. Heroes, by the way, that routinely torture (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/11/chicago-police-torture-stanley-wrice/3991469/) random people to close cases.

The police are paid for the risk involved in their work, and paid handsomely. We owe them nothing more, not a higher level of respect than afforded any other government worker and not the benefit of the doubt.

[Slyspy]

It is tricky not to respect a policeman more than you do a taxman.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is tricky not to respect a policeman more than you do a taxman.

I respect police to a certain extent. My area doesn't have a hostile or toxic relationship between the residents and police. Blacks dont report abuse or persecution in the ways that media suggests they do elsewhere.

Either way, I would hope that your entire countries would be able to defeat our individual municipal police forces.... Check populations and income. Europeans could stand to boost their militaries if this is even up for serious argument.

Anyway, my concern isn't really with local LE. I've never heard of no-knock raids in my area and I believe that police strength is over estimated intentionally to deter bad action. LE here are just civies like you and me who just want a paycheck and to keep their heads down. My concerns are always with police forces who have no community roots and are treated like private armies, like Federal and city LE.

[HoreTore]

Police education here is done as a 3-year bachelors degree at a specialized university.


Perhaps that can explain a lot of the difference in violence?



Anyway, my concern isn't really with local LE. I've never heard of no-knock raids in my area and I believe that police strength is over estimated intentionally to deter bad action. LE here are just civies like you and me who just want a paycheck and to keep their heads down. My concerns are always with police forces who have no community roots and are treated like private armies, like Federal and city LE.

The police force in question in this thread is the local police, isn't it?

[Husar]

Police education here is done as a 3-year bachelors degree at a specialized university.

Here as well, you also need to have an Abitur with a decent grade at least. Abitur is what qualifies you for higher education here as we also offer "lower grade" high schools.

[lars573]

Police education here is done as a 3-year bachelors degree at a specialized university.


Perhaps that can explain a lot of the difference in violence?
And here there are 2 year diploma courses that qualify you to be a cop, sheriff, or corrections officer.




The police force in question in this thread is the local police, isn't it?
Yep. And the smaller the PD the more corrupt it tends to be.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do they have any shells available quickly? And those kinds of helo's could be brought down by small arms fire.


Not quite. The Swedish army has 8 combat battalions and 19 support 50k strength. The NYPD has 35000 uniformed officers, if you see numbers higher than that it's been inflated by including the not fully trained, not allowed a gun under any circumstances, not actually cops auxiliaries and support staff. Hard truth is that even the most anemic euro weenie army would wipe the floor with the police departments from any of the major US cities. They might have a bunch of military gear, but not enough people with the training to use it in battle effectively. Have you watched TDKR? :laugh4:

I might be reluctantly forced to admit that Swedish army is a bit younger and fitter than would be the NYPD's "Bagel brigades."

[ReluctantSamurai]

The notion of police legitimacy and its connection to education levels was underscored not long ago when a fatal officer-involved shooting was successfully defended in both the courts of law and public opinion. Most of the six officers involved had bachelor's degrees, a fact which supported the department's attorney's claim that these officers were smart, well-trained, highly educated critical thinkers who were forced to take the only option left them by the suspect. In addition, after the officers' names and backgrounds were made public, the community rallied around them and supported the department in large part because of its professionalism.

So basically, it helps with public and legal image when faced with litigation:inquisitive:


Higher education does not guarantee that a candidate will become a great cop, but it does promote critical thinking

And I suppose all the people who never went to college, or dropped out and started their own successful businesses, can't think critically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_dropout_billionaires

And if a higher education does not guarantee a good cop, what is the critical factor that makes the difference between a good one and a bad one? I would suggest it's the personal make-up of the individual. Hire a disturbed individual with a military background that likes to shoot a gun and you get tragedies like the one being discussed here. Hire a well-balanced individual who wants to make a positive impact on societal changes, while making a decent living, and you get a good cop. I think a thorough psychiatric examination would have a better chance of producing a good cop than a college education:shrug:


largely driven by the voracious appetite of the local police union and city politicians that do not dare challenge these everyday heroes.

And how is the police union any different than any other union when it comes to pensions and such? Just look at what the UAW did to Detroit.


We owe them nothing more, not a higher level of respect than afforded any other government worker and not the benefit of the doubt.

Except you aren't calling a city hall records-keeper when someone is attempting to break into your home....:creep:

[Husar]

And if a higher education does not guarantee a good cop, what is the critical factor that makes the difference between a good one and a bad one? I would suggest it's the personal make-up of the individual. Hire a disturbed individual with a military background that likes to shoot a gun and you get tragedies like the one being discussed here. Hire a well-balanced individual who wants to make a positive impact on societal changes, while making a decent living, and you get a good cop. I think a thorough psychiatric examination would have a better chance of producing a good cop than a college education:shrug:

Education is never a guarantee but a "thorough psychiatric examination" might just result in more cops and non-cops on pills going by current trends.~;)

Giving people a good education and a good mental skill set to deal with problems is not really a bad idea IMO. You can still do the mental examination to find out whether they are more likely to use those learned skills or to go for the gun instead.

[Kadagar_AV]

Geez...

My point with NYPD vs Swedish Army was just a way to point out that cops over the world are currently arming up. That it even GOT to a debate who would win, says more about the situation than the conclusion on the discussion of who would win.

IMHO police are better behaved unarmed, and less risky to themselves and their surroundings.

I wouldn't mind a police force where only certain rapid-response units carried firearms.

[Major Robert Dump]

I really wish I was there because QuickTrip has some delicious hotdogs, and I would love to get my loot on.

[lars573]

We both know you'd pull a muscle in your back tipping a smart car. Then you'd spend the rest of the riot pouring beer into your gas mask. :yes:


Geez...

My point with NYPD vs Swedish Army was just a way to point out that cops over the world are currently arming up. That it even GOT to a debate who would win, says more about the situation than the conclusion on the discussion of who would win.

IMHO police are better behaved unarmed, and less risky to themselves and their surroundings.

I wouldn't mind a police force where only certain rapid-response units carried firearms.
Not so. Cops in Canada are armed, to the point that some departments have assault rifles in the cars beside the shot gun. Yet the biggest debate about use of force comes not from shootings, but use of tasers.

[Kadagar_AV]

We both know you'd pull a muscle in your back tipping a smart car. Then you'd spend the rest of the riot pouring beer into your gas mask. :yes:


Not so. Cops in Canada are armed, to the point that some departments have assault rifles in the cars beside the shot gun. Yet the biggest debate about use of force comes not from shootings, but use of tasers.

Different cultures, different rules needed.

I didn't talk about a universal solution to every nations problem, I talked about an ideal society.

In todays Sweden I want every single policemen (and twice as many of them) with assorted tactical equipment.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Giving people a good education and a good mental skill set to deal with problems is not really a bad idea IMO

And I would agree with that. Just saying that other factors may be more important when interviewing officer candidates.

[HoreTore]

And I would agree with that. Just saying that other factors may be more important when interviewing officer candidates.

To be admitted to the 3-year bachelors degree in Norway, you have to pass this (http://www.phs.no/en/studies/bachelor-police-studies/entrance-requirements/personal-suitability/) first.

Further, I do not see how billionaires with low education counters the argument that a higher education improves the behaviour and effectiveness of a cop.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love how these heroic, highly trained police officers

always use the "i was sceeeeeeeered" defense when having to explain why they had to shoot a guy in a wheel chair, or an 80 year old, or a woman in a car, or some teenage girls, etc. The excuses these guys use about PTSD and stress etc are laughable. Still can't believe the LA county deputy was acquitted after shooting the airman in the back while the kid was on the ground. He used the "i was sceeeered there were people around" and said there was low light and shadows and reflections and it made him jumpy and POOF now he has a defense and does no jail time despite there being a video

I also love how they immediately get into a penis measuring contest whenever they find out one is a soldier, probably because they know deep down inside that the soldiers know the cops are big sceeeeered babby and cops need to prove otherwise

[HoreTore]

I love how these heroic, highly trained police officers

always use the "i was sceeeeeeeered" defense when having to explain why they had to shoot a guy in a wheel chair, or an 80 year old, or a woman in a car, or some teenage girls, etc.

That's not relevant when everyone has that same edumacation.

[Major Robert Dump]

Education may help, but that is not the end-all solution. You can go to school and not learn or believe anything, just like you can also not go to school and still have decent morals.

I have knows some cool cops, and it all came down to attitude and how they approached the use of force. I also have family who are police, and they dream of someday getting to shoot someone.

Ultimately it comes down to these men and women thinking that the "sacrifice" they are making somehow means they have the right to decide who lives and dies at a whim, and any false charges they bring are justified. It is the ultimate team mentality. There is zero remorse

[HoreTore]

Education may help, but that is not the end-all solution. You can go to school and not learn or believe anything, just like you can also not go to school and still have decent morals.

Not really relevant. The question is whether or not education improves attitudes, reactions and efficiency.

And I'd say it does.

[Major Robert Dump]

I would say it does, too, but a sociopath or bully will still be a sociopath or bully. Andy Griffith only graduated high school

[Montmorency]

I will go ahead and call PJ's posts here racist, though purely as a knock-down, and not because I mean any particular thing that any one of us might have in mind by it.

More to the point: the attribution of corporate guilt when some ne'er-do-wells take advantage of restive atmosphere and seething masses to indulge in rapine speaks to some unwholesome prejudices...

That said, I find myself growing tense or wary far more in the presence of cops than blacks lately.

And hey, how could I have room in my heart for hate when I recently saw a young black man wearing a striped polo with the top button done? I was so moved that I had the strong impulse to rape and eat his warm corpse.* :wacky:

*It's how I express affection.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Further, I do not see how billionaires with low education counters the argument that a higher education improves the behaviour and effectiveness of a cop

The context of the original quote by PJ was that higher education leads to better 'critical thinking'. I don't believe that one leads to the other, and the billionaire examples were addressing that point.


Not really relevant. The question is whether or not education improves attitudes, reactions and efficiency.

Better education certainly couldn't hurt, but a personal profile to weed out sociopaths that just want to shoot a gun at someone is better, IMHO.


Ultimately it comes down to these men and women thinking that the "sacrifice" they are making somehow means they have the right to decide who lives and dies at a whim, and any false charges they bring are justified. It is the ultimate team mentality. There is zero remorse

And a professional profiler would have a better chance at identifying 'zero remorse' than a college diploma would.

[HoreTore]

The context of the original quote by PJ was that higher education leads to better 'critical thinking'. I don't believe that one leads to the other, and the billionaire examples were addressing that point.

....And since it's anecdotal in the extreme, I can't see how it matters. Also, are you equating conflict resolution and entrepreneurship? How does that make sense?


Better education certainly couldn't hurt, but a personal profile to weed out sociopaths that just want to shoot a gun at someone is better, IMHO.

Of course you need personal assessment as well, who would argue against that? Still, you need to work with what you have, making sure that what's available to you becomes as good as they can be. That's what the education is for.


And a professional profiler would have a better chance at identifying 'zero remorse' than a college diploma would.

A 'professional profiler' would be even better with a psychology degree.

[Greyblades]

If a man had a psychology degree he would not stoop to being a profiler.

[HopAlongBunny]

6 bullets and no signs of physical altercation; he was guilty of being black :p

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tips-for-being-an-unarmed-black-teen,36697/

[ReluctantSamurai]

A 'professional profiler' would be even better with a psychology degree.


If a man had a psychology degree he would not stoop to being a profiler.

Right.

http://maryellenotoole.com/meo/becominganfbiprofiler/


At this time, in order to work as an FBI Profiler in the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), you have to be an FBI Agent. This means you go through the FBI Academy, which is approximately 4 months long. This training is very rigorous and involves classroom training in courses that include psychology, interviewing, and legal issues. You will also be trained in firearms and will go through a challenging physical fitness program.


The FBI requires a four-year college degree in any major in order to apply for the Agent position. Agents in the BAU have had a variety of degrees from Psychology, to Political Science, to Math to Criminal Justice. Some of the BAU profilers have Advanced College Degrees and some do not.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6738642_education-required-become-criminal-profiler.html


There is no mandatory educational requirement for a criminal profiler. Individuals interested in this career might begin with an undergraduate degree in criminology, criminal justice, forensics or psychology

So an individual with a Psych degree might be viewed as taking a step up when becoming a profiler....

~:wave:


Still, you need to work with what you have, making sure that what's available to you becomes as good as they can be. That's what the education is for.

A college education is not a panacea for all that is wrong with the world. It doesn't necessarily make you a better person, nor does it guarantee that you become expert in "conflict resolution". The billionaire list was simply to illustrate that one can succeed in life without a diploma.

One more time....education CAN certainly improve the quality of law enforcement officers. A screening process that involves a thorough personal assessment would be an even better method.

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

Can anyone here confirm what was said in the video that in the military you are not supposed to point your weapon until you are about to fire?

[Montmorency]

In other news, Brown had no prior nigga-record.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting-no-criminal-background/14023731/

[Rhyfelwyr]

In other news, Brown had no prior nigga-record.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting-no-criminal-background/14023731/

So is that link right? It is confirmed that there was a struggle where Brown tried to take the officer's gun (at least according to police reports)?

[Sir Moody]

So is that link right? It is confirmed that there was a struggle where Brown tried to take the officer's gun (at least according to police reports)?

As I understand it according to the Police Reports that is how it happened - according to several witnesses however it is not...

[HopAlongBunny]

To be fair about the militarization of the police, I believe the ~4billion$ transfer of resources from the army to police came with the caveat: Use it or Lose it.
Everyone loves toys, and hates having to give them up.

[Husar]

One more time....education CAN certainly improve the quality of law enforcement officers. A screening process that involves a thorough personal assessment would be an even better method.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, Norway apparently has both and I don't see why not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

6 bullets and no signs of physical altercation; he was guilty of being black :p

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tips-for-being-an-unarmed-black-teen,36697/

He was also guilty of robbing a convenience store, by the looks of things.

This seems very like the Mark Duggan case that sparked the London riots - while he shouldn't have been shot, he should have been arrested.

[Kralizec]

He was also guilty of robbing a convenience store, by the looks of things.

This seems very like the Mark Duggan case that sparked the London riots - while he shouldn't have been shot, he should have been arrested.

Wether or not he robbed a store is entirely irrelevant - especially because the cop involved didn't know about the robbery when he encountered Brown.

The justification that the cop acted in genuine self-defense seems unlikely to me. Even if Brown gave the appearance of rushing towards the cop, I fully want and expect my police officers to be able to deal with a lone, unarmed scrawny 18-year kid without restorting to lethal force.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, he was 6 foot 4, not exactly scrawny, a fat body

But if there were other cops present, they could have easily handled it without deadly force, even if he went for the gun, he would still be easy to stop if you had another officer. This guy may not have even have known where the safety was. And some witnesses are saying he only charged after he was shot once already

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, Norway apparently has both and I don't see why not.

If you are asking a why/why not question, 95% of the time the answer is "money."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is the purported story from the officer's side. source (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-airs-officers-side-of-story-as-recounted-by-friend-of-darren-wilson/)

This story has yet to be officially confirmed as that made by the officer.

All forensics reviews agree that none of the bullet wounds were to the back of Mr. Brown, so he was not shot while fleeing the scene.

Should this story prove to be accurate (and it is hard to say how much "after-the-fact" story telling is included), we have a cop who is feeling threatened, worried about being outnumbered, has almost been overpowered/had his gun taken, and sees what he probably assumes to be a PCP-jacked big guy coming at him. He then pulls the trigger repeatedly, failing to hit the target center of mass (which, to be fair, I am told is surprisingly difficult even for trained persons under close-combat threat conditions) until a head shot ends Mr. Brown.


On a separate theme, if it had been my 19-year-old son jaywalking in the middle of the street (euro-American 100% by descent) I wonder if the cop would have even bothered to tell him to get out of the street.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is the purported story from the officer's side. source (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-airs-officers-side-of-story-as-recounted-by-friend-of-darren-wilson/)

This story has yet to be officially confirmed as that made by the officer.

All forensics reviews agree that none of the bullet wounds were to the back of Mr. Brown, so he was not shot while fleeing the scene.

Should this story prove to be accurate (and it is hard to say how much "after-the-fact" story telling is included), we have a cop who is feeling threatened, worried about being outnumbered, has almost been overpowered/had his gun taken, and sees what he probably assumes to be a PCP-jacked big guy coming at him. He then pulls the trigger repeatedly, failing to hit the target center of mass (which, to be fair, I am told is surprisingly difficult even for trained persons under close-combat threat conditions) until a head shot ends Mr. Brown.

This sounds plausible - certainly there's nothing to indicate that Brown was "executed" as some have tried to claim, and his shoving the officer is consistent with him shoving the owner of the store he robbed.

The six poorly aimed shots are consistent with panic, and a large man (and brown was very large) can take multiple bullets and keeps carrying forwards if he's already got up steam.

Having said all that, if the officer had gone for his baton instead of his gun, Brown would likely still be alive.


On a separate theme, if it had been my 19-year-old son jaywalking in the middle of the street (euro-American 100% by descent) I wonder if the cop would have even bothered to tell him to get out of the street.

Remember the Oxford historian who got dog piled in New York and then locked up for J-Walking?

[Kadagar_AV]

This sounds plausible - certainly there's nothing to indicate that Brown was "executed" as some have tried to claim, and his shoving the officer is consistent with him shoving the owner of the store he robbed.

The six poorly aimed shots are consistent with panic, and a large man (and brown was very large) can take multiple bullets and keeps carrying forwards if he's already got up steam.

Having said all that, if the officer had gone for his baton instead of his gun, Brown would likely still be alive.



Remember the Oxford historian who got dog piled in New York and then locked up for J-Walking?

Yeah, and the cop might have been killed or injured.


Look, I am the last to have much love for cops. But at the end of the day, they are people like you and me, and they are often put in stressful situations.

I am not defending this cops actions, I am just saying that I do have some understanding that cops, when pressured to hard, can be a little bit trigger happy.

I probably would be in the same situation. Heck, I remember in the army when I almost shot a hunter. He was totally harmless, but I was jacked up on adrenalin and perceived a threat. Had he raised his weapon just a little bit more, I would have been more or less a murderer :shrug:

[HoreTore]

So an individual with a Psych degree might be viewed as taking a step up when becoming a profiler....

~:wave:

What an utterly idiotic statement. I took your previous comment to imply that profilers did not have such an education, and suggested that having such an education would create an effective profiler. The FBI apparently believes the same as I do, and demand their profiles to have a proper education.

So take your wave and stuff it.

[Husar]

Well, he was 6 foot 4, not exactly scrawny, a fat body

But if there were other cops present, they could have easily handled it without deadly force, even if he went for the gun, he would still be easy to stop if you had another officer. This guy may not have even have known where the safety was. And some witnesses are saying he only charged after he was shot once already

Yes, like I said, policemen shouldn't run around alone to stop criminals if it can be prevented.


If you are asking a why/why not question, 95% of the time the answer is "money."

Indeed, but it should be weighed up against the opportunity costs and the cost of human lives that the alternative apparently racks up.
Although I'm well aware that quite a few Americans are willing to have more dead people if it means they can save a tax cent a year.
Which they won't, as the police will likely spend the money on something else, like more tanks or so.

[Pannonian]

Indeed, but it should be weighed up against the opportunity costs and the cost of human lives that the alternative apparently racks up.
Although I'm well aware that quite a few Americans are willing to have more dead people if it means they can save a tax cent a year.
Which they won't, as the police will likely spend the money on something else, like more tanks or so.

I don't understand why any police force would need armoured vehicles anyway. If there are some heavily-armed diehards holed up in a building, you don't need a tank to force your way in. Everyone knows a panzerfaust is much more cost-effective.

[Ironside]

All forensics reviews agree that none of the bullet wounds were to the back of Mr. Brown, so he was not shot while fleeing the scene.


The vitnesses (yes, there's more than the friend) claim is that he fled the scene, got shot at, stopped, turned around with hands in the air and was going down on his knees when shot. The Guardian has a good cover. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/ferguson-michael-brown-shot-multiple-times-autopsy-shows-including-in-head)


If you are asking a why/why not question, 95% of the time the answer is "money."

Appearently it's the case here as well. Basically, the cops are overfining black people as an extra source of income. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322691/-The-Seamy-Underbelly-Of-Ferguson-Starts-To-Appear)

[rajpoot]

According to the Guardian article one of the shots penetrated the top of the head.

One of the bullets entered the top of the skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck and caused a fatal injury, according to Michael Baden, a former chief medical examiner for the City of New York.
Two ways that can happen. Either the man is bowing his head down in a gesture of surrender or charging at someone planning to ram them or succumbing to injuries.
And the article also mentions that the shots were fired from a distance. So a execution style killing is unlikely.
I don't think there can be a lot of doubt as to what happened in this case. The friend who is giving the eyewitness account is most certainly lying. And should probably be punished for misleading the authorities and being a part of the robbery at the store. After due process of course.

[Pannonian]

Appearently it's the case here as well. Basically, the cops are overfining black people as an extra source of income. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322691/-The-Seamy-Underbelly-Of-Ferguson-Starts-To-Appear)

Utterly barbaric. Why can't they install speed cameras like in more civilised countries?

[Ironside]

According to the Guardian article one of the shots penetrated the top of the head.

Two ways that can happen. Either the man is bowing his head down in a gesture of surrender or charging at someone planning to ram them or succumbing to injuries.
And the article also mentions that the shots were fired from a distance. So a execution style killing is unlikely.
I don't think there can be a lot of doubt as to what happened in this case. The friend who is giving the eyewitness account is most certainly lying. And should probably be punished for misleading the authorities and being a part of the robbery at the store. After due process of course.

I'm not sure you're getting the situation. Michel is closest to the police in the police testification.

All agrees on Michael running after confrontation at the car and him stopping afterwards after the policeman Darren shouts. Darren stay still at this point. According to Darren, Michael starts charging. According to other witnesses (as I said, the friend isn't the only witness), Darren is angry enough to simply start shooting the scumbag/thug/rubbish/rabid dog Michael.

And the robbery case is a mess, appearently it's a costumer, not the store (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released/) that phoned it in as a crime. This part of the surveilance tapes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew) indicates that it wasn't a
robbery. Rather Michael streched over the counter to grab, (presumably) fresher cigarettes and returned the ones he already had. That was enough to piss off the owner causing the next scene. I can't say I can see the money as claimed, but he is clearly returning cigarettes, which is quite an odd behavior if you're stealing.

Considering the rest of the behavior by the cops there, that they haven't charged the friend yet and claimed they won't means that they don't have a case.

Now it probably did make Michael act guilty and Darren to be convinced that he was dealing with a robber.


Utterly barbaric. Why can't they install speed cameras like in more civilised countries?

Not enough money in it I suppose? Catching people for speeding as an extra budget income for the police is quite common in the US.

[Kadagar_AV]

People often lift USA as an example of a working multicultural society... Yet, every so often we see race-related issues. With "every so often" I of course mean daily or even minutely... And that's just the serious thingys, not the everyday racism I so treasure :rolleyes:


Ironside, the police in capitalistic countries, not just the US, make money from speeding tickets. It's the same in Sweden, was a huge fuss about it a year ago or so... If you remember.

[Pannonian]

Not enough money in it I suppose? Catching people for speeding as an extra budget income for the police is quite common in the US.

British police are big fans of camera proliferation for this purpose though. Or so it is said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

People often lift USA as an example of a working multicultural society... Yet, every so often we see race-related issues. With "every so often" I of course mean daily or even minutely... And that's just the serious thingys, not the everyday racism I so treasure :rolleyes:

At least we don't have sharia law.

[Kadagar_AV]

At least we don't have sharia law.

Some people might see that as a temporary state.

[Greyblades]

So an individual with a Psych degree might be viewed as taking a step up when becoming a profiler....


Only in the terms of pay grade, when criminal profilers get things wrong they can end up making pariahs of innocent people, and they get things wrong a lot. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/11/12/dangerous-minds?printable=true)

[lars573]

People often lift USA as an example of a working multicultural society... Yet, every so often we see race-related issues. With "every so often" I of course mean daily or even minutely... And that's just the serious thingys, not the everyday racism I so treasure :rolleyes:


Ironside, the police in capitalistic countries, not just the US, make money from speeding tickets. It's the same in Sweden, was a huge fuss about it a year ago or so... If you remember.
Actually the US isn't a multicultural society. The idea of the melting pot is about being reforged as an Yank rather than keeping what brought with you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually the US isn't a multicultural society. The idea of the melting pot is about being reforged as an Yank rather than keeping what brought with you.

If your definition of "multicultural" is that different ethnic groups still identify as members of the country they left, then by definition multicultural is a retarded goal.

If your definition of multicultural is that you have many wildly different ethnicities and cultures co-inhabiting among each other in relative peace than the US is 100% multicultural. Asking someone to identify as American is not asking them to identify or to imitate life as a WASP.

[Montmorency]

From everything I've read, the cop Wilson threatened Brown the fatality and pulled a gun and began firing while Brown and friend retreated, whereafter Brown turned to surrender and was killed. The only loose end I can see is that the PD claims Wilson suffered an injury - a skull fracture.

Anything on that?

[Ironside]

People often lift USA as an example of a working multicultural society... Yet, every so often we see race-related issues. With "every so often" I of course mean daily or even minutely... And that's just the serious thingys, not the everyday racism I so treasure :rolleyes:


The race relations between blacks and whites in the US are long indeed. Basically, after the civil war, the north gave up on enforcing the new civil right rules on the south, so the blacks went back to being "slaves". That's why nothing happens on the civil rights for the black for about 100 years. The US starts out racist towards almost every new immigrant group (the Irish wasn't white when the immigrated), but with time, most groups are allowed to be integrated and integrate. The issue with blacks got much bigger roots though.


Ironside, the police in capitalistic countries, not just the US, make money from speeding tickets. It's the same in Sweden, was a huge fuss about it a year ago or so... If you remember.

I'm a bit erratic reader of Swedish news, so I missed that one appearently. Anyway, the main point was that the Ferguson cops are more or less inventing crimes to get more money. That's a few steps futher.


From everything I've read, the cop Wilson threatened Brown the fatality and pulled a gun and began firing while Brown and friend retreated, whereafter Brown turned to surrender and was killed. The only loose end I can see is that the PD claims Wilson suffered an injury - a skull fracture.

Anything on that?

Nope. No picture and no medical record of it is public. If it exist at all.

Edit: Oh, the prosecutor Robert McCulloch that Gov. Jay Nixon insists should handle the case:
His father (who was police) was shot to death by a black man.
Dreamed about being a cop before an amputated leg stopped it.
Has several family members in the force.
Has freed undercover 2 cops that shot 2 unarmed suspects to death with 21 bullets, with calling the killed suspects as scum.

No conflict of interest there...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't understand why any police force would need armoured vehicles anyway. If there are some heavily-armed diehards holed up in a building, you don't need a tank to force your way in. Everyone knows a panzerfaust is much more cost-effective.

It took this cop 6 rounds to drop Mr. Brown. Do you want that level of accuracy applied to hand-held rocketry?

The armored cars may be a bit of a stretch. Not sure why anything past a Humvee with a bit of extra front grill and paneling would be needful.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The vitnesses (yes, there's more than the friend) claim is that he fled the scene, got shot at, stopped, turned around with hands in the air and was going down on his knees when shot. The Guardian has a good cover. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/ferguson-michael-brown-shot-multiple-times-autopsy-shows-including-in-head)

Appearently it's the case here as well. Basically, the cops are overfining black people as an extra source of income. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322691/-The-Seamy-Underbelly-Of-Ferguson-Starts-To-Appear)


We shall see what the investigation develops. I find the use of 6 rounds for the kill suggestive of a quickly moving target rather than one kneeling in surrender....but forensics reports could not address that issue from the wound evidence. It is possible.

We do have a huge problem with police acquiring property from raids and fines. The confiscation of drug dealer property thing created a host of problems and far too many police forces have been issuing speeding tickets as a revenue source for years. Why? Because velocity can be easily measured and the fine levied. What would REALLY increase road safety -- policing following distance, use of illumination, and safe passing -- is WAY more labor intensive. So they police speed....which of itself contributes to relatively few accidents (though excessive speed for the current road conditions does).

[Kadagar_AV]

This is purely a sidenote: But I've read about experimental towns where they removed every single road sign...

Accidents went DOWN, as people then didn't focus on the signs but instead focused on, say, not killing themselves and others. Pretty interesting, imho :)

EDIT: Linkelilink :) (http://www.dw.de/european-towns-remove-traffic-signs-to-make-streets-safer/a-2143663-1)

[Husar]

They should remove locks from doors, maybe then people would focus less on being jealous of the haves and just take what they need from whoever has it and everybody would be happier. :)

[Kadagar_AV]

They should remove locks from doors, maybe then people would focus less on being jealous of the haves and just take what they need from whoever has it and everybody would be happier. :)

Yeah... Those crazy stupid Germans removing traffic signs... Aight? You are aware that this experiment take place in Germany, and that it seems to work spectacularly well? :)

[Husar]

Yeah... Those crazy stupid Germans removing traffic signs... Aight? You are aware that this experiment take place in Germany, and that it seems to work spectacularly well? :)

It works because we Germans naturally stick to rules and already know how to behave where. Look at countries where hardly anyone follows any kind of rules in daily traffic and then check their accident rates and traffic deaths. Signs are just a physical visible interpretation of the metaphysical traffic rules. And AFAIK we are mostly not removing all signs, we are removing excess signs to make the remaining signs more visible. There is also talk about setting up signs to prevent people from driving up onto a highway in the wrong direction. Apparently not having signs to prevent that makes it happen very often and signs are seen as the primary solution since they work in other countries.

In other words, your point isn't.

[Kadagar_AV]

It works because we Germans naturally stick to rules and already know how to behave where. Look at countries where hardly anyone follows any kind of rules in daily traffic and then check their accident rates and traffic deaths. Signs are just a physical visible interpretation of the metaphysical traffic rules. And AFAIK we are mostly not removing all signs, we are removing excess signs to make the remaining signs more visible. There is also talk about setting up signs to prevent people from driving up onto a highway in the wrong direction. Apparently not having signs to prevent that makes it happen very often and signs are seen as the primary solution since they work in other countries.

In other words, your point isn't.

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

I think everyone is too afraid to read a link you posted while they are at work.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think everyone is too afraid to read a link you posted while they are at work.

I don't think I ever posted a NSFW link here...

Wrote a lot of offensive post though, but that's another issue :yes:


EDIT: Fur Husar it's some hours after midnight now anyway... Have as little idea why he is up as I have why I am up...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think I ever posted a NSFW link here...

Wrote a lot of offensive post though, but that's another issue :yes:


EDIT: Fur Husar it's around midnight now anyway...

I was actually trying to insinuate that you would post a link to some racist garbage about the inferior blacks. The joke wasn't well structured, my apologies.

[Husar]

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

It just supports the same kind of leftist rainbow fantasy that you despise when we talk about multiculturalism.
It doesn't mention the signs against driving in the wrong direction at all, the town that wnats to remove all signs is in the Netherlands, not Germany and just because we also have a few silly people (also Bavarians) there is no reason to think that I have to agree with them.

And despite all that nothing in that link says there should be no rules or that traffic deaths actually are lower in countries wher noone follows rules and people just flow with the traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Sort this list by fatalities per 100k inhabitants and tell me why Germany and the Netherlands are at the low end of the scale if rules and regulations are so bad.

And then maybe also check this one on traffic accidents in a country where people do not follow many rules and go with "eye contact and slower speed" instead of rules as Rosey McWeedy the traffic liberalist from the Netherlands puts it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collisions_in_India


The "Global Status Report on Road Safety" published by the World Health Organization (WHO) identified the major causes of traffic collisions as driving over the speed limit, driving under the influence, and not using helmets and seat belts.[1] Failure to maintain lane or yield to oncoming traffic when turning are prime causes of accidents on four lane, non-access controlled National Highways. The report noted users of motorcycles and motor-powered three-wheelers constitute the second largest group of traffic collision deaths.[3]

Yeah right, with no rules, people drive slower, discarding safety equipment and the rules to use it makes the world a safer place and not having any lanes means people can just turn wherever they want safely after making eye contact with all the 500 oncoming drivers on a highway. I'll now retreat to my cloudy sleeping place in lalaland because if I just wish enough that it would work, I can surely sleep on a cloud and it'll be all pink and rainbowy and cushy and.....

[Kadagar_AV]

Husar, first of all - you would still drive on the same side of the road...

I am not defending this experiment, I am just bringing it up. If you are interested, read up on the issue some more, it's rather interesting if you are into that stuff :)

Me? I dont even have a drivers license :shrug:

[Husar]

Husar, first of all - you would still drive on the same side of the road...

That's exactly what I said, that people who are already used to the rules would likely follow most of them anyway, at least for a certain amount of time. And in that case it might work. But countries which never had the rules in the first place, and this includes early industrial European countries, are doing far worse than countries where all the drivers have been indoctrinated with road safety rules and follow them even without signs.


Me? I dont even have a drivers license :shrug:

Neither do I. The part where it says the Dutch town has hardly any pedestrians left was the most annoying. It means they are all destroying the environment and wasting resources while their bodies decay! :sweatdrop:

[rajpoot]

They can remove the road signs in India too. It wouldn't make any difference to how people drive. :laugh4:
Currently they are used for dogs marking their territory and at times traffic cops use them to lean against while they take a break from trying to fine random people.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's not just the 1st Amendment that get violated in Ferguson:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/ferguson_s_constitutional_crisis_first_amendment_violations_are_only_part.html

[ICantSpellDawg]

The more I hear about this shooting and aftermath, I am convinced of 3 things:

1.The shooting was justified and the 300 lb "victim" made the situation necessary through the use of violence against a police officer as a result of a minor citation. The "victim" then turned around to continue beating the officer because the officer had the nerve to pull on him and place him under arrest for committing a violent felony against a police officer when he was fired upon in rational self-defense. Please substitute the word "victim" with "perp"

2. The police reaction to the initial protest and attempt at provoking and censoring media was wholely incompatible with 1st amendment protections.

3. If anyone ever breaks into my house to rob my family and do me serious bodily harm or to kill me, I hope it isn't a minority. I just don't want to hear it. But, honestly - what is the likelihood of that?

[Major Robert Dump]

cops got another one in st Louis, and their initial statement contradicts the released video, particularly the part where he was waving a knife (he wasn't holding a knife)

reminds me of old ROE in early Iraq and Afghanistan, where people were killed simply for getting too close.

[HopAlongBunny]

I can understand the protest; people want to be clear that sweeping this into the abyss will not pass.
The problem is: anytime you take to the street you create a situation for other groups to exploit; these groups may be political or criminal, and they are organized (if not professional)
Too bad it only takes one bad decision for the whole thing to become a real mess.

The news is not all bad; National Guard to begin withdrawl-peace and ponies for all?~:grouphug:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GF0LP20140821

[rory_20_uk]

The more I hear about this shooting and aftermath, I am convinced of 3 things:

1.The shooting was justified and the 300 lb "victim" made the situation necessary through the use of violence against a police officer as a result of a minor citation. The "victim" then turned around to continue beating the officer because the officer had the nerve to pull on him and place him under arrest for committing a violent felony against a police officer when he was fired upon in rational self-defense. Please substitute the word "victim" with "perp"

2. The police reaction to the initial protest and attempt at provoking and censoring media was wholely incompatible with 1st amendment protections.

3. If anyone ever breaks into my house to rob my family and do me serious bodily harm or to kill me, I hope it isn't a minority. I just don't want to hear it. But, honestly - what is the likelihood of that?

The autopy found no powder burns on the corpse, so the officer managed to throw the 6' 4'' person sufficiently far away that he was then able to draw and fire his gun several times before the person got within 2 feet (apparently 2 feet can be determined by the lack of powder burns) - yet was still threatening. And caused no other injury to the person whilst doing this. And sustained little injury himself.

The police in many "democracies" prefer to break the law and await the investigation to find this to be the case as abiding by the law is a pain. "Sadly" cameras are increasingly meaning that their versions are challenged, and the good old days of colluding before statements and shredding evidence still leaves a lot of material out of their hands.

I doubt many would defend the rights armed home invaders, but the right of homeowners to open the front door and fire a shotgun at the head of a drunk woman is being questioned (as it appears one can "fear for one's life" even if one engineered the situation to do so); last I heard the "perp" was unarmed and crossing a road. Now, I know laws are different in America, especially the Southern States. Was he crossing the road without his owner?

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The autopy found no powder burns on the corpse, so the officer managed to throw the 6' 4'' person sufficiently far away that he was then able to draw and fire his gun several times before the person got within 2 feet (apparently 2 feet can be determined by the lack of powder burns) - yet was still threatening. And caused no other injury to the person whilst doing this. And sustained little injury himself.

The police in many "democracies" prefer to break the law and await the investigation to find this to be the case as abiding by the law is a pain. "Sadly" cameras are increasingly meaning that their versions are challenged, and the good old days of colluding before statements and shredding evidence still leaves a lot of material out of their hands.

I doubt many would defend the rights armed home invaders, but the right of homeowners to open the front door and fire a shotgun at the head of a drunk woman is being questioned (as it appears one can "fear for one's life" even if one engineered the situation to do so); last I heard the "perp" was unarmed and crossing a road. Now, I know laws are different in America, especially the Southern States. Was he crossing the road without his owner?

~:smoking:

Many would defend the right of a buglar to break into your home, un-acosted by deadly force. Horetore is one of those, I believe.

Also, I am heavily critical of the homeowner who shot someone on his doorstep. He is in jail now on 2nd degree murder charges. You can't walk outside and kill someone.

This officer is alleging an assault, eye socket fracture and a 6'4, 300lb pe charging at him to inflict more damage. His story makes a legitimate self defense/reasonable use of force claim. The Detroit homeowner's story didn't.

We will see how the story holds up. Have you every been charged at?

[rory_20_uk]

Many would defend the right of a buglar to break into your home, un-acosted by deadly force. Horetore is one of those, I believe.


This officer is alleging an assault, eye socket fracture and a 6'4, 300lb pe charging at him to inflict more damage. His story makes a legitimate self defense/reasonable use of force claim. The Detroit homeowner's story didn't.

We will see how the story holds up. Have you every been charged at?

A police officer who decided to get out of his car as the suspect was crossing the road. The 6'4'' assilant, who has no history of violence decides to throw a pretty powerful punch at the police officer - enough to bruise or even break his eye socket. If the person did have a record of violence the police would have made that known to all ASAP.

Unlike most people sustaining this level of unprovoked injury, the police officer engages in a struggle which leaves neither himself or the other party with any injuries. Next the other party is some distance away - did he decide to stop hitting the police officer after one blow and take a run up? Lucky he did, else how did the officer pull his gun to shoot him?

If I'd just shot someone repeatedly, I'd go and get one of my mates to hit me as hard as they can in the face to show I was in danger. A fellow officer would understand - the damn liberal media just woudn't get how tough those streets can be.

~:smoking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A very similar case from a while ago, unarmed man confronted by police 15 minutes after committing a crime. In this case the officer tries to use his taser:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n1JQ6fCoag

[Beskar]

A very similar case from a while ago, unarmed man confronted by police 15 minutes after committing a crime. In this case the officer tries to use his taser:

Can you explain the events in the video? I was looking at the comments but they don't seem to make sense. This is what I understand.

Guy was a suspect, the police man pulls up, gets out his taser, orders the suspect to get down.
The suspect ignores the police officer, continues to walk towards him whilst the cop steps back.
The suspect gets over the railing, then stands there.
The suspect ignores the order repeatedly.
The officer fires his taser to subdue the suspect and it failed.
The suspect then goes to attack the officer, he gets into a struggle.
There is a struggle occurring and a plain clothed officer goes over to help the police officer.
The suspect ends up back in front of the car, then he drops down on the floor in response to the civilian officers orders.
The officer stumbles over, looking hurt and injured, makes a radio-call, seems to be checking the suspects life-signs/simply watching over him.
Motorcycle cop shows up with more support, they are asking if everyone is okay and such.

So where/when did the person get shot? Why is the person dead?

[Greyblades]

The suspect then goes to attack the officer, the officer fires his taser, he gets into a struggle.

What? He was tazed before he went to attack the officer, you can hear the crackle at 0:30 and the guy recoils before charging the cop.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Can you explain the events in the video? I was looking at the comments but they don't seem to make sense. This is what I understand.


So where/when did the person get shot? Why is the person dead?

Sorry, forgot to post the article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/walton-centennial-bridge-shooting-justified/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html


Steven Mallory, 39, was seriously injuring officer Clif Anderson and would have continued to do so if Anderson did not shoot him twice with his Glock .40-caliber handgun, Walton said.

The first shot to Mallory's chest hit his lungs and heart and is believed to be the shot that killed him, Walton said. The second entered his torso near his spleen and went through his body.

Mallory had bitten an eyebrow off Anderson, punched him, choked him and slammed his head against the pavement. The fight ended after Jim Weakley, an East Moline detective who happened to be passing by on the bridge, stopped and attempted to get Mallory off Anderson. Weakley couldn't, but Anderson then was able to remove his gun from his holster and shoot Mallory, officials said. Anderson will require plastic surgery.


I think the shots just sound like pings in the video.

[Beskar]

What? He was tazed before he went to attack the officer, you can hear the crackle at 0:30 and the guy recoils before charging the cop.

That was a mistake, corrected.


Sorry, forgot to post the article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/walton-centennial-bridge-shooting-justified/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html

I think the shots just sound like pings in the video.

Ah ha, thank you.

I thought the 'pings' was the bodies hitting the metal railings during the struggle. Not gun-shots.

[Husar]

So where was the officer's partner?

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.
I suppose the next evolution step is a combined gun/taser weapon where they can tase a suspect and shoot him if something like the situation in the video happens.

[Montmorency]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cnn_refutes_claim_that_officer_darren_wilson_had_a_fractured_eye_socket/

Lol this is pretty unequivocal. Forget Trayvon, this is some of the most legit stuff in years.

[HopAlongBunny]

Sure they might be poor, but they turn out to be a great source of municipal funding:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/ferguson-s-shameful-legal-shakedown-three-warrants-a-year-per-household.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So where was the officer's partner?

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.
I suppose the next evolution step is a combined gun/taser weapon where they can tase a suspect and shoot him if something like the situation in the video happens.

The majority of USA police, except in major metropolitan areas, operate solo in their patrol cars.

[Greyblades]

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.

What he deserved was a cop that wasn't so impatient and taze-happy. He also deserved a trial. He certainly didnt deserve was the sequence of events that ended with him bleeding out on the road.

They both did wrong but the cop was the idiot who started it for nothing.

[Husar]

What he deserved was a cop that wasn't so impatient and taze-happy. He also deserved a trial. He certainly didnt deserve was the sequence of events that ended with him bleeding out on the road.

They both did wrong but the cop was the idiot who started it for nothing.

No.

The cop was alone against a guy who was quite a bit bigger and stronger. He asked him several times to comply, let him come closer than I might have and warned him that he would get tazed if he kept refusing to comply. IMO that was plenty of warning and the guy was calm enough to understand every single word of it. And then the guy attacked the cop and probably tried to kill him, at that point he went way too far and the cop shot him in self defense.

The problem I see on the part of the police in general here is that the cop was alone, had no support and was obviously only saved when a cop who was not his partner rushed in to help him.
And blaming the cop for employing a tazer against this guy who was obviously unwilling to comply and thinking about other shenanigans the entire time is not trigger happy, it's called wanting to get home alive, a trigger happy cop would've drawn his handgun right away and in this particular case it would have saved him some bruises.
You cannot just ignore the physical difference between the two, without a gun the cop might have been dead since he obviously wasn't the next Chuck Norris. A police officer represents society and the laws they set up, refusing to obey his commands repeatedly and after ample warning justifies the cop in trying to literally enforce the law IMO, otherwise we can just do away with the police or the monopoly on violence they have because they have it exactly for this kind of criminals who do not turn themselves in voluntarily.

Oh and the cop didn't start anything for nothing, he was trying to arrest a criminal and didn't start out with a lethal weapon, if you're the kind of person who thinks if the criminal doesn't react to nice words they should let him go, then I can't help you.

[Greyblades]

No.
The cop was alone against a guy who was quite a bit bigger and stronger. He asked him several times to comply, let him come closer than I might have and warned him that he would get tazed if he kept refusing to comply. IMO that was plenty of warning and the guy was calm enough to understand every single word of it. And then the guy attacked the cop and probably tried to kill him, at that point he went way too far and the cop shot him in self defense.
...

1. Being bigger and stronger is irrelevant as the man was completely passive and had been complying with the cop's instructions, albiet delayed, he wasnt even swearing at the cop let alone actively resisting when he got tazed.
2. I am not arguing that he shouldn't have shot the man as at that point he was attacking the officer with likely intent to grievously harm. I am arguing he shouldn't have been so quick to apply the tazer, as it is reasonable to belive that a bit more patience on the part of the cop would have resulted in the man complying with the arrest.


Oh and the cop didn't start anything for nothing, he was trying to arrest a criminal and didn't start out with a lethal weapon, if you're the kind of person who thinks if the criminal doesn't react to nice words they should let him go, then I can't help you. I expect better than this of you Husar.

[Beskar]

2. I am not arguing that he shouldn't have shot the man as at that point he was attacking the officer with likely intent to grievously harm. I am arguing he shouldn't have been so quick to apply the tazer, as it is reasonable to belive that a bit more patience on the part of the cop would have resulted in the man complying with the arrest.


Sorry, but when a cop says get down on the floor. You get down on the floor. You don't take your sweet-ass time just herpy-derpy whilst the cop issues warnings. The fact he didn't was because he was trying to buy time out of the situation, and the taser failing to work removed the threat, thus proceeded to try to kill the Officer.

[Greyblades]

Sorry, but when a cop says get down on the floor. You get down on the floor. Correction: should. And he certianly should. But being tazered for just standing there is still unwarranted and frankly troubling on the cop's part: A trained police officer shouldnt be jepardizing taking a man alive and quietly over impatience.

[Kadagar_AV]

Meh.

I am SO not a huge fan of the police, but I so understand the cops actions in that video. Had I been a cop, I would probably have had even less patience. We can't expect cops to risk their lives.

I'd have tazed already when the guy didn't follow the second warning.

[HopAlongBunny]

It seems to me the situation grew out of a context of privilege over exploitation.
The officer in this case may have thought his privilege extended to murder; reducing the object of execution to "animal" status.
"Murder"? Well one article I was reading, involving the apparent lack of any police report in Ferguson, made the observation that the case was handed to the St. Louis PD_the last line of the article blithely commented that they are treating it as a homicide investigation.
Which of course proves nothing; no charges (yet) no detailed report of what happened (yet); it does appear to be something the Ferguson police just wish would "go away".

[Husar]

Correction: should. And he certianly should. But being tazered for just standing there is still unwarranted and frankly troubling on the cop's part: A trained police officer shouldnt be jepardizing taking a man alive and quietly over impatience.

He was testing how far the cop would go. You can only issue so many empty threats until a criminal knows you do not intend to act on them. The cop knew that as well and that is why he tazed him after warning him once and asking him to get down several times.
When the tazer didn't work, the perp did not hesitate even a little bit to start attacking the cop with full force, I'd even say it looks like he mentally prepared to do just that.

[Kadagar_AV]

I dare anyone to imagine themselves being the cop in that situation...

Imagine it's yourself standing there.

I am fit, I am sergeant, I am 187 tall, I have trained martial arts for years. I would however have more or less wet my pants had I been the cop in that situation.



I think it's so easy to think cops are supermen who can easily deal with any situation. Me, I am seeing a might be father who just wanted his shift to end so he could get back to his family. To then have a big burly man charge at you... Yeah, that's why they have guns in the first place.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The fact that police put their life on the line doesn't give them free reign to use excessive force at the least hint of a threat, far less mere non-cooperation on the part of a suspect. A lot is made of how the cop feels, but the suspect is most likely going to be in a distressing situation in the first place, they have perhaps been in a confrontation and will still be in a defensive/aggressive mindset.

Equally, I can sympathise with the cop - they are only human and for all the training in the world they can still get nervous like the rest of us. They deal with the worst of society day in and day out in a very hostile environment. In the USA, a cop must know in every case they deal with them that a gun can be pulled on them at any time. That must have a big psychological impact. To be on your own when dealing with a criminal would make anybody nervy, and when you combine that with the fact that they can take safety only in their weapons, that makes for a pretty toxic combination.

The possible solution to all this would be to make sure cops work in larger groups (certainly at least pairs even for routine patrols), while at the same time taking away their excessive weaponry. That should make policing calmer, more confident and less confrontational.

[Kadagar_AV]

The fact that police put their life on the line doesn't give them free reign to use excessive force at the least hint of a threat, far less mere non-cooperation on the part of a suspect. A lot is made of how the cop feels, but the suspect is most likely going to be in a distressing situation in the first place, they have perhaps been in a confrontation and will still be in a defensive/aggressive mindset.

Equally, I can sympathise with the cop - they are only human and for all the training in the world they can still get nervous like the rest of us. They deal with the worst of society day in and day out in a very hostile environment. In the USA, a cop must know in every case they deal with them that a gun can be pulled on them at any time. That must have a big psychological impact. To be on your own when dealing with a criminal would make anybody nervy, and when you combine that with the fact that they can take safety only in their weapons, that makes for a pretty toxic combination.

The possible solution to all this would be to make sure cops work in larger groups (certainly at least pairs even for routine patrols), while at the same time taking away their excessive weaponry. That should make policing calmer, more confident and less confrontational.

You good sir, just won the internet.


PS: The police in Sweden never ever are less than two at any given situation... Bar the K9 squads, but then, the dog counts as a police officer legally.

[Greyblades]

He was testing how far the cop would go. You can only issue so many empty threats until a criminal knows you do not intend to act on them. The cop knew that as well and that is why he tazed him after warning him once and asking him to get down several times.
When the tazer didn't work, the perp did not hesitate even a little bit to start attacking the cop with full force, I'd even say it looks like he mentally prepared to do just that. You say, I on the other hand saw behavior remenicient of school bullies who sulked when caught doing bad and would briefly resist authority through inaction before submitting. Pity we wont know which interpritation is true because he's dead.


I dare anyone to imagine themselves being the cop in that situation...

Imagine it's yourself standing there.

I am fit, I am sergeant, I am 187 tall, I have trained martial arts for years. I would however have more or less wet my pants had I been the cop in that situation.
Ignoring the dubiousness of your self appraisal, pissing himself or not I expect a police officer holding an unarmed man at gunpoint to be able to not shoot him before he starts to reisist.


I think it's so easy to think cops are supermen who can easily deal with any situation. Me, I am seeing a might be father who just wanted his shift to end so he could get back to his family. To then have a big burly man charge at you... Yeah, that's why they have guns in the first place. I am not criticizing the officer for his conduct when the perp chraged I am criticizing the fact that it was his actions that drove the perp into doing so.

[Kadagar_AV]

You say, I on the other hand saw behavior remenicient of school bullies who sulked when caught doing bad and would briefly resist authority through inaction before submitting. Pity we wont know which interpritation is true because he's dead.


Ignoring the dubiousness of your self appraisal, pissing himself or not I expect a police officer holding an unarmed man at gunpoint to be able to not shoot him before he starts to reisist.

I am not criticizing the officer for his conduct when the perp chraged I am criticizing the fact that it was his actions that drove the perp into doing so.

My self appraisal is spot on imho :yes:

Regardless, he didn't shoot him before the resist, he tazed him after resisting. That's a whole other matter.

The cops "actions" was... Well... Exactly what he was trained to do. Get an alarm, find the perpetrator, stop him, let justice deal with him...

You might argue that the last bit never happened, but then do remember that police under the law has the right to do pretty much exactly what he did. That IS justice, that's why we have laws. The officer wasn't some random person, he was the embodiment of the democratical society.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It seems to me the situation grew out of a context of privilege over exploitation.
The officer in this case may have thought his privilege extended to murder; reducing the object of execution to "animal" status.
"Murder"? Well one article I was reading, involving the apparent lack of any police report in Ferguson, made the observation that the case was handed to the St. Louis PD_the last line of the article blithely commented that they are treating it as a homicide investigation.
Which of course proves nothing; no charges (yet) no detailed report of what happened (yet); it does appear to be something the Ferguson police just wish would "go away".

And just how long do you think we should wait before the lynching of the officer? You've tried him in the oh-so-knowing world of the internet, dis-believed his story and classified him as a racist murderer. Well done.

This kind of investigation takes time and is not resolvable prior to the completion of a toxicology screening which takes a bit. I am willing to wait for the results at least, before I condemn the man. How old-fashioned of me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The fact that police put their life on the line doesn't give them free reign to use excessive force at the least hint of a threat, far less mere non-cooperation on the part of a suspect. A lot is made of how the cop feels, but the suspect is most likely going to be in a distressing situation in the first place, they have perhaps been in a confrontation and will still be in a defensive/aggressive mindset.

Equally, I can sympathise with the cop - they are only human and for all the training in the world they can still get nervous like the rest of us. They deal with the worst of society day in and day out in a very hostile environment. In the USA, a cop must know in every case they deal with them that a gun can be pulled on them at any time. That must have a big psychological impact. To be on your own when dealing with a criminal would make anybody nervy, and when you combine that with the fact that they can take safety only in their weapons, that makes for a pretty toxic combination.

The possible solution to all this would be to make sure cops work in larger groups (certainly at least pairs even for routine patrols), while at the same time taking away their excessive weaponry. That should make policing calmer, more confident and less confrontational.

I agree with you that cops working in pairs is far safer -- physically and ethically -- than solo patrols. It also more or less doubles the policing budget of every smaller community in the USA.

[Montmorency]

And just how long do you think we should wait before the lynching of the officer? You've tried him in the oh-so-knowing world of the internet, dis-believed his story and classified him as a racist murderer. Well done.

This kind of investigation takes time and is not resolvable prior to the completion of a toxicology screening which takes a bit. I am willing to wait for the results at least, before I condemn the man. How old-fashioned of me.

I've seen plenty of people make this mistake lately, which coincidentally is made far less frequently for blacks (and indeed, for Michael Brown here): namely, the conflation of the legal standard "innocent until proven guilty", which is at least nominally applied in the criminal justice system, with the personal judgements made or conclusions reached by interested parties based on the information available to the public at a given time.

Typically, very few observers of criminal proceedings are actually perfectly agnostic about the situation, but crucially they are not charged to be so by any law, code, precedent, custom, or suchlike - only the judges and juries directly associated with a particular case are.

[Husar]

The fact that police put their life on the line doesn't give them free reign to use excessive force at the least hint of a threat, far less mere non-cooperation on the part of a suspect.

Do you call banging the cop's head against the pavement "mere non-cooperation" or did you miss the part where the cop didn't even threaten with a lethal weapon before that happened?

Or are you not talking about the incident in Sasaki's video? Of course I agree with what you say, it's just that it doesn't apply to Sasaki's video. The video where that confused black guy gets shot by two police officers who leave their car with their guns already drawn and threaten him right away is quite different, especially since there are two cops. In Sasaki's video there is only one cop at first and he has the balls to try and subdue a searched-for criminal who is physically at least twice as strong without the threat of deadly force.

It's true that police militarization and police brutality are bad, but that doesn't mean they apply to every cop and every situation.

As for cops needing a partner, already mentioned that in post #78 and several times afterwards, of course they should have one, it's not a solution to end all problems but it does help a whole lot. There was also a video of a lone cop getting into a shootout with some crazy libertarian guy or so who had an old army carbine. It is heartbreaking because it ends with the sounds of the cop gurgling his own blood while he dies in his car...

[ICantSpellDawg]

A very similar case from a while ago, unarmed man confronted by police 15 minutes after committing a crime. In this case the officer tries to use his taser:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n1JQ6fCoag

That officer was lucky to have the camera set up. Nobody could say that he executed an innocent child just minding his business on a bridge.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sorry, forgot to post the article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/walton-centennial-bridge-shooting-justified/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html




I think the shots just sound like pings in the video.

That cop made the mistake that everyone is demanding all cops make from now on. "use a taser instead" It almost got the officer killed. He should have pulled on the guy the second he refused orders and approached the officer.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As for cops needing a partner, already mentioned that in post #78 and several times afterwards, of course they should have one, it's not a solution to end all problems but it does help a whole lot. There was also a video of a lone cop getting into a shootout with some crazy libertarian guy or so who had an old army carbine. It is heartbreaking because it ends with the sounds of the cop gurgling his own blood while he dies in his car...

The guy was a sovereign statist. Anyone who uses violence to get out of a traffic ticket, even if you deny the authority of the legal system, is an insane person.
Tear the ticket up, but don't shoot your way out.

Not all sovereign statists are crazy people and violent criminals. Their ideology is; since we are all born and sign no contract on how to live, who has authority over our lives? Is that authority justified or merely enforced with threat of violence or incarceration? Can a democracy pass laws over how you should brush your teeth, open a can of beans, etc just because a bunch of people came together somewhere and said it could?
Their answer is no and they decline to be a part of a state that they never joined in the first place.

[Montmorency]

Who gave them the right to do so?

[Greyblades]

The guy was a sovereign statist. Anyone who uses violence to get out of a traffic ticket, even if you deny the authority of the legal system, is an insane person.
Tear the ticket up, but don't shoot your way out.

Not all sovereign statists are crazy people and violent criminals. Their ideology is; since we are all born and sign no contract on how to live, who has authority over our lives? Is that authority justified or merely enforced with threat of violence or incarceration? Can a democracy pass laws over how you should brush your teeth, open a can of beans, etc just because a bunch of people came together somewhere and said it could?
Their answer is no and they decline to be a part of a state that they never joined in the first place. I never got sovereign statists, the state isn't something you can negociate membership with; It's not a club, it's more like a landlord: obey the rules or find somewhere else to sleep.

[HopAlongBunny]

You've tried him in the oh-so-knowing world of the internet, dis-believed his story and classified him as a racist murderer.

Reading comprehension "0". I clearly said "nothing has been proven" The fact is without a police report that actually has some details, the officer does not yet have a story beyond a vague sketch that "something happened".
To the credit of the St. Louis PD, they are treating the investigation as a homicide; proves nothing about events but displays that they are treating the event seriously.
In fact, since no charges have even been laid as yet there is no innocence to presume; no one is as yet guilty of anything relevant to the event.
The context and handling do tend to colour my judgement to the detriment of the officer.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm sorry. Sovereign Citizens. Not statists, that makes no sense.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I never got sovereign statists, the state isn't something you can negociate membership with; It's not a club, it's more like a landlord: obey the rules or find somewhere else to sleep.

This is the point exactly. Why does their club make the rules for everyone? Is this "their land" simply by strength of force? Babies born daily are required to conform or be violently incarcerated or have their rights or property forfeit as adults. Sovereign Citizens are just people who recognize the barbarism of the notion.

There is nowhere else to "sleep". Others have declared themselves masters of the universe.

[Montmorency]

Others have declared themselves masters of the universe.

And "sovereign citizens" haven't?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And "sovereign citizens" haven't?

They have declared themselves the masters only of themselves. Let others be the masters of themselves. Protect yourself and engage only in mutually agreed interactions and contracts.

They are effectively Constitutional Minarchists by another name. They play legal games because they view the law as a game in itself, imposed on them by others.

Even if you view the law as illegitimate and the government as a bunch of suit-wearing highwaymen, the last thing a reasonable person would do is provoke the brigands. Work against them daily, but never provoke.

[Montmorency]

One can only master others, not oneself.

[Husar]

Thanks for clarifying that, sounds like a form of extreme middle-wing libertarianism. ~;)

It's quite a funny idea that probably comes up in people who have the luxury to think too much about how to improve their lives further. And forget why they have the luxury to think about that in the first place. A UN contract that lets people choose their nationality at age 20 might be interesting though. Antarctica could then be reserved for sovereign citizens.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like the movement, but the fraud and murder is off putting.

Like most thing that are fringe, crazy people are drawn to them. Sometimes those crazy people build the United States, other time they build North Korea. I would bet that most SC would never consider fraud or murder.

The thing that I do like is that they convene their own courts, issue judgements and correspondence and send it out to police and people who mess with them. They demand payments or some nonsense. They are really trying make the point that as absurd as the people may think the SC court is, that is how sovereign citizens view civil procedure on a grander scale. If you don't think that their courts are valid - ask yourself why your own courts are.

Law enforcement is afraid of the movement because it is spreading. They are also afraid of it because it pulls their mask of legitimacy off.

[Greyblades]

I find it cowardly, the same as all unwarrented independance movements.

People disatisfied by a society instead of trying to solve their problems, run away and hope thier new society will be devoid of those problems. If the instigating problem was obvious, like institutionalized racism, religious segregation or a seemingly unmanageable distance between governing and governed; the new nation's direction is clear and the result can be seen as a worthy endeavor, freeing one people of oppression and teaching the remainder the unsustainability of thie previous regime. An idealist would wish that they could have come to such an arrangement together without splitting and therefore weakening both parties, but rarely do such occur when the divisions are maintained by malice and ignorance.

But when the problem is ubiquitous, when it is a petty sense of nationalism fueled by resentment of common corruption, where all oppression, be it racial, cultural or religious, is merely imagined or inflated far beyond reality, all the independance does is selfishly split a country into weaker segments. Those left behind will have learned nothing, save resentment for the leavers. Those who were incapable or unwilling to change the whole, will find themselve equally unable to keep a new state from become prey of the same problems that caused them to leave. Nothing is improved and both are weakened.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I find it cowardly, the same as all unwarrented independance movements.

People disatisfied by a society instead of trying to solve their problems, run away and hope thier new society will be devoid of those problems. If the instigating problem was obvious, like institutionalized racism, religious segregation or a seemingly unmanageable distance between governing and governed; the new nation's direction is clear and the result can be seen as a worthy endeavor, freeing one people of oppression and teaching the remainder the unsustainability of thie previous regime. An idealist would wish that they could have come to such an arrangement together without splitting and therefore weakening both parties, but rarely do such occur when the divisions are maintained by malice and ignorance.

But when the problem is ubiquitous, when it is a petty sense of nationalism fueled by resentment of common corruption, where all oppression, be it racial, cultural or religious, is merely imagined or inflated far beyond reality, all the independance does is selfishly split a country into weaker segments. Those left behind will have learned nothing, save resentment for the leavers. Those who were incapable or unwilling to change the whole, will find themselve equally unable to keep a new state from become prey of the same problems that caused them to leave. Nothing is improved and both are weakened.

I don't know about the word "cowardly" to describe a group of associated loners intentionally provoking Federal and State governments with violence and interstate fraud. The rest of your post is a reasonable concern.

I believe that there is a need for more sovereignty for individuals. Historically, people believed in a collective purpose and largely modified their behaviours to conform to the social dicat. Today, nearly everyone, even religious conservatives understand that the emperor has no clothes. Their is no "mandate of heaven" and your political leaders are just as clueless as you are, and probably more unscrupulous and power hungry than average. Nobody has business governing anyone else.

I am a Constitutional Minarchist, I want a government of the lowest common denominator which recognizes the maximum sovereignty of every individual. I believe in laws, not that regulate people, but that regulate those who would attempt to rule over people. Every man and woman should be free to live the life that they believe they are meant for, not the life that an increasingly disturbed and profligate government, church, or corporation believes they are meant for.

Small groups of people hundreds or thousands of miles away from a town should never male laws that affect individuals within that town. They can, however, focus on foreign policy and the minimum that national government is authorized to do. The rest should be left up to individuals wherever possible.

[Slyspy]

What if I believe that the life I am meant for is to be really good at stabbing people in the eye with a biro?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if I believe that the life I am meant for is to be really good at stabbing people in the eye with a biro?

Then you should go out an do it. They guy who believes that he is meant to stop you from stabbing people will actually appreciate it as you help him to affirm his own life mission. What are you waiting for?

But seriously. The notion is that people are the masters of themselves, not of others. Stabbing people who are not looking to be stabbed is an attempt to master another.

[Husar]

and your political leaders are just as clueless as you are

No, that's what they have the NSA and associates for...

And the movement ignores the fact that it can only exist because of the technological advancements we made as societies of people working together, not lonely and not only by making trillions of small individual contracts but also huge societal contracts that many people agree to as well.

Humans are basically apes and as such herd animals. If it weren't for the security that our herds have provided us and established over centuries these people would perish lonely in the wilds (possibly even to criminal herds of humans praying on loners for food), that's the reality they refuse to acknowledge by trying to ignore the herd contracts that they think only restrict them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, that's what they have the NSA and associates for...

And the movement ignores the fact that it can only exist because of the technological advancements we made as societies of people working together, not lonely and not only by making trillions of small individual contracts but also huge societal contracts that many people agree to as well.

Humans are basically apes and as such herd animals. If it weren't for the security that our herds have provided us and established over centuries these people would perish lonely in the wilds (possibly even to criminal herds of humans praying on loners for food), that's the reality they refuse to acknowledge by trying to ignore the herd contracts that they think only restrict them.

We only have all of the amazing things that we have today through the countless hundred years of slavery and compelled labor at home and abroad, too. Doesn't make those things right or deserving of continuation. We will use technology to progress away from an abusive political system.

Also, I don't think of apes as "herd animals". We can find better ways to allow people to govern themselves. Illegitimate nanny statism isn't one of the ways. I'm interested in finding a way to a solution, balancing the natural desire to be a free person with the natural desire to form a minimal government. This balance is out of whack and getting worse - in need of a big correction. The spread of the internet will accelerate these ideas until the number of subversives outnumbers loyalists. Good luck holding everything up with us tickling your armpits.

[Husar]

We only have all of the amazing things that we have today through the countless hundred years of slavery and compelled labor at home and abroad, too. Doesn't make those things right or deserving of continuation. We will use technology to progress away from an abusive political system.

Also, I don't think of apes as "herd animals". We can find better ways to allow people to govern themselves. Illegitimate nanny statism isn't one of the ways. I'm interested in finding a way to a solution, balancing the natural desire to be a free person with the natural desire to form a minimal government. This balance is out of whack and getting worse - in need of a big correction. The spread of the internet will accelerate these ideas until the number of subversives outnumbers loyalists. Good luck holding everything up with us tickling your armpits.

Sovereign citizen sounds more like no government rather than little government. Government reform is certainly necessary in the US though, that constitution is 300 years old! ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

No - they have a legal starting point and ending point for Federal government. They recognize the Constitution and many other laws. They get a little zany though, that's why I just consider myself a Constitutional Minarchist rather than a Sovereign Citizen.

I don't respect the Constitution because of its age; I respect it because it is unlike any other document in that it is overwhelmingly a law against government rather than one that is used against people. Things in the Constitution that are abusive to the rights of men and women should be repealed and "the way things have always been" isn't an argument that I would ever make.

[Greyblades]

I just consider myself a Constitutional Monarchist

...the hell?

[Beskar]

...the hell?

He wants the USA to join the Commonwealth.

[ICantSpellDawg]

...the hell?

Minarchist. Spell check keeps changing it.

[lars573]

I don't know about the word "cowardly" to describe a group of associated loners intentionally provoking Federal and State governments with violence and interstate fraud. The rest of your post is a reasonable concern.

I believe that there is a need for more sovereignty for individuals. Historically, people believed in a collective purpose and largely modified their behaviours to conform to the social dicat. Today, nearly everyone, even religious conservatives understand that the emperor has no clothes. Their is no "mandate of heaven" and your political leaders are just as clueless as you are, and probably more unscrupulous and power hungry than average. Nobody has business governing anyone else.

I am a Constitutional Minarchist, I want a government of the lowest common denominator which recognizes the maximum sovereignty of every individual. I believe in laws, not that regulate people, but that regulate those who would attempt to rule over people. Every man and woman should be free to live the life that they believe they are meant for, not the life that an increasingly disturbed and profligate government, church, or corporation believes they are meant for.

Small groups of people hundreds or thousands of miles away from a town should never male laws that affect individuals within that town. They can, however, focus on foreign policy and the minimum that national government is authorized to do. The rest should be left up to individuals wherever possible.
Sovereign citizens (a better description would be libertarian-anarchists) are like libertarians, anarchists, and communists. They subscribe to an insane notion that the problems they see with society are the result of evil people bending society to their benefit. And that if you throw out the baby and the bathwater and remove all the potential evil people it will make a better place to live. When really those problems are the result of society being made up of humans. And humans don't all think alike at all times. Utter utter non-sense.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sovereign citizens (a better description would be libertarian-anarchists) are like libertarians, anarchists, and communists. They subscribe to an insane notion that the problems they see with society are the result of evil people bending society to their benefit. And that if you throw out the baby and the bathwater and remove all the potential evil people it will make a better place to live. When really those problems are the result of society being made up of humans. And humans don't all think alike at all times. Utter utter non-sense.

You just said that they were anarchist libertarian communists. Is it possible that you don't understand those terms?
I will agree that many of their ideas are zany, but of that was government today you would be defending it.

[Montmorency]

But that's the point: they couldn't be the government of today.

[ICantSpellDawg]

But that's the point: they couldn't be the government of today.

Why not? With dwindling population growth expected and technological automation - Silicon Valley seems to like the idea at least. They aren't becoming more statist in the aggregate, are they?

If modern governments existed in the time of the Pharoahs - the pyramids would have never been built. It would be a shame, but I'm sure it would be a good thing and that the construction would be even more impressive.
Without slavery, would the U.S. textile industry have taken off to the extent that it did? That's no defense of slavery.

We learn from the mistakes of the past and build new futures. Most people on earth dont have the skills held by our ancestors; we would probably die pretty quickly if we were transported back in time. Clearly though, we are better off.

[Ironside]

You just said that they were anarchist libertarian communists. Is it possible that you don't understand those terms?
I will agree that many of their ideas are zany, but of that was government today you would be defending it.

All of them has the stated goal to form either an extremely weak or a non-existant state. Basically, any successful (communism in particular got spectacular failures) implementation, and it wouldn't be a goverment left to defend.


Why not? With dwindling population growth expected and technological automation - Silicon Valley seems to like the idea at least. They aren't becoming more statist in the aggregate, are they?


Good luck having no state intervation when most of the human workers are obsolete. Current form of free market will be figurativly or literally killed off. And the most resonable alternatives starts with forms of citizen salaries and regulated shorter work days.

[ICantSpellDawg]

K
All of them has the stated goal to form either an extremely weak or a non-existant state. Basically, any successful (communism in particular got spectacular failures) implementation, and it wouldn't be a goverment left to defend.



Good luck having no state intervation when most of the human workers are obsolete. Current form of free market will be figurativly or literally killed off. And the most resonable alternatives starts with forms of citizen salaries and regulated shorter work days.

The government should offer a free slave robot to any individual who accepts permanent sterilization.

Problem solved.

You are implying that we need government to support us when we all become obsolete to the economy and wealthy people are able to get what they need without an economy that exists to keep their serfs alive and building things for them. Thats why we buy guns; particularly heavy, anti-material calibers . I'm almost positive that when human beings are no longer of any use to powerful people that no amount of government will save them. When people are useless and government has killing machines that don't ask questions, we are all screwed. There is no Wall-E, no lazy eternity having robots do everything that is needed. Just mass execution. Humans, who exist as working chattle, will follow the same demographic trend as horses when people no longer found a use for them.

Or everything will be just fine and we'll all just sit in government subsidized circles jerking off and singing kumbaya.

Either way, it's going to be a blast.

[The Lurker Below]

as horses when people no longer found a use for them.

So the best looking examples of us will be allowed to roam around in front of the house as living lawn ornaments?

[Papewaio]

So the best looking examples of us will be allowed to roam around in front of the house as living lawn ornaments?

Only if you are hung like one...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Only if you are hung like one...

Like a lawn ornament? THAT much I got. Well, Travelocity Gnome sized ornament anyway.....

[Fisherking]

K

The government should offer a free slave robot to any individual who accepts permanent sterilization.

Problem solved.

You are implying that we need government to support us when we all become obsolete to the economy and wealthy people are able to get what they need without an economy that exists to keep their serfs alive and building things for them. Thats why we buy guns; particularly heavy, anti-material calibers . I'm almost positive that when human beings are no longer of any use to powerful people that no amount of government will save them. When people are useless and government has killing machines that don't ask questions, we are all screwed. There is no Wall-E, no lazy eternity having robots do everything that is needed. Just mass execution. Humans, who exist as working chattle, will follow the same demographic trend as horses when people no longer found a use for them.

Or everything will be just fine and we'll all just sit in government subsidized circles jerking off and singing kumbaya.

Either way, it's going to be a blast.


Tax money at work. Genetic Units & their Carbon legacies. We are carbon emissions that must be controlled. It is just environmental cleanup.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf