|
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/south_carolina_cop_radioed_six_seconds_after_hitting_victim_20150409quote:Analysis of the police radio shows Slager, the officer who shot at Scott eight times, making the radio call announcing the shots and alleging the Taser seizure, sounding frantic and breathless at the same time as he walks slowly towards Scott’s body. quote:Walter Scott might still be alive if police had taken another black man’s claims about cop seriously
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
The guy who shot the footage has been interviewed:quote:Santana has reportedly said he waited to release the footage to see how Slager would report his actions. It's sad that he couldn't give the footage to the authorities for fear they would have made it disappear. Our justice system, folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Santana is a hero. To do what he did on more than one occasion took a lot of guts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
I can't imagine the terror of informing the police that he had that video, then slowly coming to the realization that if they murdered that other guy for no reason they certainly might kill him too for actually being a threat then booking it out of there. Going public was probably the safest thing to do at that point and not get randomly stopped and killed for "resisting." He's a hero.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Correct me, if a am wrong but wasn't this guy ex military? I always wondered why anyone would hire a guy that has has trained for most of his formative years to kill everyone he perceives as an enemy and then expect he suddenly stops doing that once "deployed" in his own country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
demonicon posted:Correct me, if a am wrong but wasn't this guy ex military? I always wondered why anyone would hire a guy that has has trained for most of his formative years to kill everyone he perceives as an enemy and then expect he suddenly stops doing that once "deployed" in his own country? Former Coast Guard. Oddly enough, so was his victim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
So is there a consensus agreement that police killings of citizens, and in general the easy resort to deadly force by U.S. police, is a problem? In U.S. society as a whole I think it's a majority opinion but not an overwhelming consensus, I suspect here in DnD it's pretty much consensus. If you were to view problems systemically, I'd say some major factors, all which have been discussed here exhaustively, include: 1. All the police are carrying firearms when the majority of law enforcement activities may not require this 2. Training and doctrine leading too readily to the use of the power of arrest and physical restraining and subduing citizens when less "escalatory" means might well suffice and not incur the risk of a physical confrontation 3. In many instances the police shooter may not have much or any empathy with the citizen, particularly if they view the population being policed as a hostile occupied territory or if racism is at play, i.e. they simply don't care about or value the citizen's life and are therefore more cavalier about snuffing it out 4. The police may, in general, feel that they are almost certain to get away with a "bad shoot" because they and their partners will be the only surviving witness and their account will have the benefit of the doubt over any other civilian witness in the absence of other objective evidence. This makes them less reluctant to use deadly force. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily looking to go kill someone, just that the degree of caution exercised is less than if they felt they were more likely to be held to account if they improperly used deadly force. This is similar to the argument that doctors will be more precise in their care and adhere more carefully to good standards in their practice if they are subject to penalty or suit if review of their care shows it to be lacking, than if they are immune from external penalty. Some of these factors, like racism, are deeply endemic in U.S. society and very difficult to eradicate. However others can be readily addressed either by policy or technology, e.g. have only a subset of police units be equipped with firearms and called upon in specific circumstances, change policy to severely narrow the circumstances in which physical restraint and arrest are used (reducing or eliminating Eric Garner type confrontations), and equip all police with bodycams recording every interaction with civilians with strict procedures for their use and handling of the video and severe penalties for the equipment being nonoperational or disabled. It may take a generation or more to successfully address issues like racism or the class and warfare of populations like Ferguson's being treated like an occupied territory and being shaken down for revenue. But by tackling some of the systemic issues that can be directly and immediately addressed we should hopefully be able to significantly reduce the incidence of this type of killing in a relatively short time. In other words, fix what we CAN fix and eliminate some of the factors that contribute to these killings so we can at least begin to decrease the scope of the problem. To me, the issue of bodycams is pretty much a no brainer at this point, the main issues being cost and the policy and procedures of how to handle the cameras and video, when they are to be activated, how the data is handled and who has access to it, what are the penalties for disabling the camera or not using it or loss or tampering with the video. I can definitely see arguments where people may feel this will be less effective than I feel it will be, but I feel it's one of those measures that is much more likely to help than harm, and I fail to see how it would hurt. Assuming cost is not an issue for the moment, I'd like to hear compelling arguments against mandatory bodycam use to record every stop and interaction with civilians by police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:1. All the police are carrying firearms when the majority of law enforcement activities may not require this I think this is a big one. Police do not need to be carrying a weapon on their hip. End of story. Make it so police have to think before taking out their weapons and this also gives the black people more time to run away. To add a little more, when you sign up to be a police officer you are recognizing that you are in fact putting your life at risk. I don't buy the idea that the only way for a police officer to be safe is to have a gun. I heard estimated numbers yesterday on the radio about number of police per citizens killed and there are way way less police officers killed than police officers killing and that's with really incomplete numbers because there isn't really any system in place to keep track of the numbers nationally. I don't want people to kill police officers, but I'd rather numbers be that the people signing up to put themselves in a dangerous situation have more dead people than folks just walking down the street. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I think it goes beyond just the police. As evidenced by several recent cases the entire system in inherently racist. It doesn't matter much if police are caught on camera or by many witnesses doing horrible things and the response is for the prosecutor to intentionally fumble the case and go after the cameraman. That judge in Ferguson was in on the money making racket along with other people in the government and often it feels there is no penalty for being openly corrupt or biased especially if you can't vote them out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
From my attempt at reading posts from our forum's own officers (a practice I do not recommend if you like not being angry), it appears that a major aspect of police training is maintaining control. Officers are taught that they need to be the man in charge when they're on the scene, solving the problems and keeping civilians under control. It seems like officer training has continued to encourage subduing anyone you can't talk down, with the officer's discretion being the only limiting factor and less-lethal violence like Tasers, pepper spray, and martial arts being relegated from "alternative to a firearm" to "method to make an unruly citizen easier to control." This is what leads to instances where non-violent resistance or even just walking away from an officer is punished through a tasing and arrest. There was one incident in particular in Ask a Copgoon that got brought up a few years back, where a Tennessee police officer strangled a non-resisting party-goer to unconsciousness. The question posed was "What would you have done if you were one of the two cops behind him?" In the real incident, the two of them had barely any reaction to their partner wrapping his hand around a compliant person's neck and choking him out. The answer from one of the officers was somewhat disturbing to read: he would have done nothing at all. While he admitted that the choking never should have happened and he had "already failed if that was allowed to occur", he also said that trying to subdue a violent officer would have removed the sense of the control the officers had over the drunk partiers and risked them no longer being the big men on campus. If the situation escalated to the point where his partner was strangling someone, he would have allowed it to occur so he could maintain order over the crowd and then he would quietly file a complaint about it back at the station and expect Internal Affairs to handle it. That kind of thinking is what scares me. He has such a disconnect from the crowd that he would rather allow violence to occur against them (and hope that internal punishment is sufficient) than prevent a fellow officer from committing bodily harm if it means that the cops keep control over them. Another thing that I'm thinking of is a rather bullshit attempt to "prove" how hard it is to be a police officer by taking an untrained minister, giving him a gun with Simmunition, and putting him in several scenarios to see how quick he reacts. The test is loaded from the start, but there are some immediate problems you can see: 1. They tried to use a completely untrained person, presumably with little to no weapons handling experience, as an example of how things go for real officers who are expected to be properly trained and taught how to make judgement calls that don't harm innocent people. 2. They gave both him and the officer performing the same tests later no gear whatsoever except for a firearm, forcing them to escalate immediately to lethal force as the only solution greater than unarmed grappling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Reason posted:I think this is a big one. Police do not need to be carrying a weapon on their hip. End of story. Make it so police have to think before taking out their weapons and this also gives the black people more time to run away. I don't know if this is really the root of the problem seeing that in all other countries policemen also carry firearms and have less or none of these deliberate fatal shootings. It may decrease the shootings by taking away the means to commit them but I don't think this would be practical or could ever be implemented in some way. What I would put more attention to is how someone gets into a mindset where he thinks that it's okay to shoot someone in the back who is running away from him and not posing a threat to anyone. Or to shoot someone who is clearly mentally ill and because of that unresponsive. I believe that this is a mindset - shoot first ask questions later - that crept slowly into the heads of the police force when the war on drugs was implemented. The war on drugs. I believe that this has lead to the us VS them situation that exists now. To fix that there needs to be a complete rethinking and retraining of the police force as a whole and a deliberate and clear commitment of the leadership that no, it's not okay to kill a fleeing man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That sounds like a worthy line of defense. I wish the prosecutors would allow them the chance to mount it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
quote:To add a little more, when you sign up to be a police officer you are recognizing that you are in fact putting your life at risk. I don't buy the idea that the only way for a police officer to be safe is to have a gun. I heard estimated numbers yesterday on the radio about number of police per citizens killed and there are way way less police officers killed than police officers killing and that's with really incomplete numbers because there isn't really any system in place to keep track of the numbers nationally. I don't want people to kill police officers, but I'd rather numbers be that the people signing up to put themselves in a dangerous situation have more dead people than folks just walking down the street. I've actually gone to town when it comes to statistics. I'll repost something I put up on another forum. In 2013, only 105 police officers died in the line of duty out of an estimated 461,000+ sworn officers (likely more, as that count is from 2008, but we'll use that number for lack of anything better). This means that 0.022% of all police officers in the United States (again, at worst) were killed in the line of duty through any means. This includes accidents, their own negligence, heart attacks, and even one who died of illness related to 9/11. For gunfire, 30 officers were shot to death by suspects (another 2 whom I won't count were killed accidentally, one from friendly fire and one from being a moron and shooting himself in the leg taking his guns out of his car). That gives us 0.00650% of all officers shot. They're already at less than a tenth of a percent chance of dying during their service each year, but the chance of a police officer in the United States being killed by another man's gun is so infinitesimally small that they are literally more likely to die driving to the scene of a crime than being shot at the crime scene. To give a comparison, people have attempted to figure out how many deaths by police occur in the US. It's very difficult, as only about 750 of the 17,000+ agencies in the US actually contribute data. But a current count of just what we know is at least 1100 per year. Even with incomplete data, that's a 3566.6666% increase over how many civilians kill cops. Another entry made by the FBI in 2012 found approximately 400 "justifiable homicides" were committed each year by the less than 1000 agencies that provided data. For more recent data, American police killings have been studiously kept up to date this year and so far we've seen 316. American cops have literally killed more people this year than the UK police have killed in a century. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
demonicon posted:I don't know if this is really the root of the problem seeing that in all other countries policemen also carry firearms and have less or none of these deliberate fatal shootings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States I think its pretty telling that in most of the UK police officers do not normally carry guns and their wiki page for police killings is one page, where on the US page it has to be broken down by year, though it appears to be pretty incomplete, probably because there isn't really any sort of national data collection for police killings. I agree that there is more to the problem, institutionalized racism and police officers have essentially become the arm of city fine collection and a part of revenue generation for cities and their police departments that has been exasperated by social and political policies that are slowly de-funding revenue generation at all levels of government. A complete rethinking and retraining is probably a big enough thing that it could include a thing where the police officer's firearm is kept locked in a box in his patrol car and only taken out when needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Reason posted:I think its pretty telling that in most of the UK police officers do not normally carry guns and their wiki page for police killings is one page, where on the US page it has to be broken down by year, though it appears to be pretty incomplete, probably because there isn't really any sort of national data collection for police killings. This is sadly correct. There's over 17,000 police agencies in the United States, but less than a thousand provide data on their shootings. The site I linked providing a sourced list of officer killings has to provide news links for every one. That list is reliable enough to estimate up to 1100 killings in 2014. That's about as many civilian homicides were committed in Texas in 2013. Edit Fuckup: An article I read last year talked about the increase in deaths in SWAT raids and the general increase in SWAT and other violent armed raids into homes being committed. The criminologist interviewed mentioned how the agencies were perfectly happy providing data on their raids and success rate...until they realized that they looked bad. As soon as they saw that they were being criticized for it, they stopped cooperating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
The fact that no one in the government seems care that police departments don't have to report accurate data on the citizens they execute without trial says all I need to know how much the political class and serious people consider rampant police abuse to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
The pat response I'm starting to get to the idea that maybe only special cop units should have guns is "well we have the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., anyone might have a gun, therefore all police must have guns, period, stop, end of story". Is this really the end of that argument or is it not realistic despite the high incidence of gun ownership in the U.S. to consider that 100 percent of police might not have to carry firearms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The answer from one of the officers was somewhat disturbing to read: he would have done nothing at all. While he admitted that the choking never should have happened and he had "already failed if that was allowed to occur", he also said that trying to subdue a violent officer would have removed the sense of the control the officers had over the drunk partiers and risked them no longer being the big men on campus. If the situation escalated to the point where his partner was strangling someone, he would have allowed it to occur so he could maintain order over the crowd and then he would quietly file a complaint about it back at the station and expect Internal Affairs to handle it. You're right, but I would add that by physically stopping another officer from assaulting someone, they would likely be fired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The pat response I'm starting to get to the idea that maybe only special cop units should have guns is "well we have the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., anyone might have a gun, therefore all police must have guns, period, stop, end of story". All police would be allowed to carry guns while off-duty, as per their Constitutional rights. On-duty would be a different story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The pat response I'm starting to get to the idea that maybe only special cop units should have guns is "well we have the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., anyone might have a gun, therefore all police must have guns, period, stop, end of story". The extremely low number of officers shot to death in the line of duty that I provided shows exactly what threat cops have from guns: slim to none. The 2nd Amendment allows for legal firearms ownership, but I don't think legally owned firearms are commonly used to shoot the police anyway. The chance of an American officer being shot to death by a civilian is less than a hundredth of a percent...but the chance of them shooting you is literally orders of magnitude greater. You have as much chance of being murdered by a police officer as you do of being murdered by a civilian in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:All police would be allowed to carry guns while off-duty, as per their Constitutional rights. On-duty would be a different story. I would assume that most businesses have regulations about bringing your gun to work, right? It just seems like such an obvious recipe for disaster...
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
demonicon posted:I don't know if this is really the root of the problem seeing that in all other countries policemen also carry firearms and have less or none of these deliberate fatal shootings. The fact that civlians in many developed countries very rarely, if ever, have firearms of their own MUST be a factor into all of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
mastervj posted:The fact that civlians in many developed countries very rarely, if ever, have firearms of their own MUST be a factor into all of this. Again, highly doubtful. There's an estimated 270 million firearms in civilian hands in the US but police death by shooting is less than a hundredth of a percent of all officers; at 30 shooting deaths in 2013, that's about 0.00001 police officers killed for every legally owned gun in the country. The number of guns in the US always gets brought up to justify armed officers who whip their guns out at every chance they get, but police murder literally over 3500% more civilians than civilians murder cops. The 2nd Amendment is little more than an excuse to keep poorly trained cops armed and jumpy. Considering that more cops were killed that year through their own negligence or accidents than shootings, I don't think it's very likely that armed civilians are a major threat. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
mastervj posted:The fact that civlians in many developed countries very rarely, if ever, have firearms of their own MUST be a factor into all of this. It is definitely gonna be used as an argument to why the police has to keep every weapon they have right now. Edit to the poster above: The perceived threat of firearms doesn't have to be real to be a massive factor to how the police is equipped and reacts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
If 2013's officer death tally says anything, you'd save more police lives by stopping them from driving themselves to work than disarming the American populace. There was the same number of deaths by car/motorcycle crash (outside of vehicular pursuit) as there was for criminal shootings. Edit: I pulled up the list of officers dead in 2013 and the number actually increased from the last time I used it as a source. Noticeably, it went to 6 deaths from 9/11-related illness from 1. quote:Edit to the poster above: And that's what I said at the end: it's not a real risk. It's an excuse for officers to remain armed regardless of their actual ability to shoot or deliver proper judgement. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
demonicon posted:I believe that this is a mindset - shoot first ask questions later - that crept slowly into the heads of the police force when the war on drugs was implemented. The war on drugs. I believe that this has lead to the us VS them situation that exists now. Before there was a War on Drugs, there was a War on Crime. For decades, we have been characterizing the police not as members of the community, but as literal soldiers waging a war against amorphous aggressors. This is something that has been absorbed by both the police forces, the justice system, and the public at large. Police are told (and believe) that they are at war. The problem is that they have no clearly defined enemy, so they behave like soldiers in an occupied territory or facing a guerrilla force - they perceive themselves to be in constant danger, they view most members of the community that aren't intimately tied to them to be potential enemies, and they react with overwhelming force to any hint of opposition or aggression. Look at how police behave, and it reflects this: chitoryu12 posted:The answer from one of the officers was somewhat disturbing to read: he would have done nothing at all. While he admitted that the choking never should have happened and he had "already failed if that was allowed to occur", he also said that trying to subdue a violent officer would have removed the sense of the control the officers had over the drunk partiers and risked them no longer being the big men on campus. Of course, wars need enemies, and you can't directly shoot crime. So what we have is the creation of 'Criminals' as the enemy. Why is that whenever one of these shootings occur, we immediately get to hear about whatever record the person might have? Why was Eric Garner's past at all useful in understanding why he was choked to death? Because it can be used to establish that he was a Criminal, and therefore an enemy in the war and a valid target. This comes up in narrative about the incident; people will say things like 'At least he'll never steal again!' This death is ok, because it was a Criminal, and killing Criminals stops Crime. A good shoot. If we want to really fix policing, we need to dismantle the idea that they are soldiers and that we can be at war with abstracts in any way that is not self-destructive. Drugs are a health issue. Crime, in as much as it can be prevented, is a poverty issue. We should be looking to reintegrate policing into the community as a public resource, so that they are characterized like firefighters and EMTs and teachers and librarians, not as soldiers. Police should be disarmed, not because having guns allows them to kill more easily, but because arming them at all perpetuates this war mythology. Disarming them is a narrative statement - we do not need to be armed, because we are not at war with our community.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If 2013's officer death tally says anything, you'd save more police lives by stopping them from driving themselves to work than disarming the American populace. There was the same number of deaths by car/motorcycle crash (outside of vehicular pursuit) as there was for criminal shootings. This doesn't change at all the fact that the number of guns in the US is a big factor in why the US has the police force it has right now. I know that this doesn't help in any way but in an alternate dimension were the second amendment didn't exist, the US statistics would probably be much closer to those of other developed nations. Again the threat doesn't have to be real to have a big effect. demonicon fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Man at first I thought the guy who filmed it had balls of steel, but after reading that he actually took it to the cops instead of immediately making copies and distributing them as quickly as possible I think he might have just been an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man at first I thought the guy who filmed it had balls of steel, but after reading that he actually took it to the cops instead of immediately making copies and distributing them as quickly as possible I think he might have just been an idiot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/09/meet-the-man-whose-video-led-to-murder-charge-against-south-carolina-cop/ He did/does have balls of steel. Going to the police first was dumb, but at least he realized that before doing something terrible like turning over the video to the cops. "Say... does anyone know you came here to the station today?" "You know what, maybe this wasn't such a good idea, I think I'll be leaving now."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man at first I thought the guy who filmed it had balls of steel, but after reading that he actually took it to the cops instead of immediately making copies and distributing them as quickly as possible I think he might have just been an idiot. Yes absolutely if somebody from a completely different background than you in a completely unheard of life-altering situation makes any sort of false start or wrong move it shows that they are inferior in intellect to you, the perfect paragon of a man who would of course do everything right the whole time. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Yes absolutely if somebody from a completely different background than you in a completely unheard of life-altering situation makes any sort of false start or wrong move it shows that they are inferior in intellect to you, the perfect paragon of a man who would of course do everything right the whole time. What I would have done would be not to even get close in the first place, which would have meant that the cop would have got off without so much as a paid vacation. I mean come on, how can you live in America in 2015 and seriously consider going to the police with evidence of a police officer on the job committing a murder? That's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:What I would have done would be not to even get close in the first place, which would have meant that the cop would have got off without so much as a paid vacation. Public Opinion of Police in America is super high, as reflected by the leniency of juries on police officers, the lack of any kind of civilian oversight or the push for it, and the absolute reluctance to ever question a police officer's statements, even if they are contradictory. Most people trust the police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I mean come on, how can you live in America in 2015 and seriously consider going to the police with evidence of a police officer on the job committing a murder? That's hosed up. Because you're panicking. People do weird things when they freak out and are placed under ENORMOUS amounts of pressure, such as, oh I don't know, having a video showing a cop is a lying murderer. The fact that you don't *get* this makes me think you live a pretty sheltered life. Watch the video with this guy. He took this very seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Public Opinion of Police in America is super high, as reflected by the leniency of juries on police officers, the lack of any kind of civilian oversight or the push for it, and the absolute reluctance to ever question a police officer's statements, even if they are contradictory. Of course they do. The alternative is loving terrifying, the police have tanks, automatic weapons, and body armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
demonicon posted:This doesn't change at all the fact that the number of guns in the US is a big factor in why the US has the police force it has right now. I know that this doesn't help in any way but in an alternate dimension were the second amendment didn't exist, the US statistics would probably be much closer to those of other developed nations. I would put this point a little more precisely, because I don't think that the guns necessitate the armed police. We have militarized police for the same reason we have so many guns: a culture of endemic fear about threats that are actually negligible, or that would be better and more safely mitigated indirectly, by addressing root causes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
demonicon posted:It is definitely gonna be used as an argument to why the police has to keep every weapon they have right now. This is the line of my reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/south_carolina_cop_radioed_six_seconds_after_hitting_victim_20150409 Something to keep in mind when folks laugh at the idea of a cop giving themselves scrapes and bruises to simulate a struggle or playing up poo poo on the radio/phone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I would put this point a little more precisely, because I don't think that the guns necessitate the armed police. We have militarized police for the same reason we have so many guns: a culture of endemic fear about threats that are actually negligible, or that would be better and more safely mitigated indirectly, by addressing root causes. This here. Its very obvious from the amount of people approving of deadly force in situations that could have easily ended without a gun being involved, not just in cop shootings but also civilian on civilian shootings. Even with this shooting with a video showing how completely in the wrong cop is you will find comments everywhere approving of his actions simply because the guy resisted. Americans are scared armed children, and the 2nd amendment supporters have done nothing to mitigate this fear which only leads to approval of deadly force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Something to keep in mind when folks laugh at the idea of a cop giving themselves scrapes and bruises to simulate a struggle or playing up poo poo on the radio/phone. Yeah, the really scary part of this is how expertly and calmly and reflexively the cop started falsifying evidence, and how the other cops went along with it. He has done this before, and he likely isn't the only one in that department who has, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, the really scary part of this is how expertly and calmly and reflexively the cop started falsifying evidence, and how the other cops went along with it. He has done this before, and he likely isn't the only one in that department who has, either. Not to sound like a broken record, but that's why I am harping on this so hard. People have a tendency to not believe but what police reformists and minority communities have been saying for decades, likely because believing it would be too horrifying. Cops do shoot people for no reason, and then cover it up. Not all of them, probably not even a majority, but it's way more common than people think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:21
|
|