|
Samurai Sanders posted:I assume they can just laugh this off like any other UN or otherwise international NGO's damning of their behavior? I feel like the authors of that report either don't understand how US law works or are intentionally misunderstanding some things for effect. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jun 19, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Why in the hell did he put himself in that position in the first place? There was no immediate threat that required him to confront the (unarmed) kid alone, he could have easily backed off until backup arrived. Even if he takes off, just mail him a ticket for flashing his lights and put a warrant out for leaving the scene or whatever else he would have been guilty of at that point. This was not a violent criminal, there was no good reason to take him down there and now other than the cop's authority being threatened. This is the problem that people are pointing out, cops intentionally and violently escalate situations when anyone challenges them in any way instead of making public safety their first priority. Put a warrant out for who? The registered owner of the car? If he refuses to provide his drivers license, or a valid form of identification, how do you know who he is? How will you just "put out a warrant"? Lot of people in this thread think things are possible and true that simply have no factual basis whatsoever. Furthermore a lot of people with outstanding warrants, wanted criminals, drivers who are suspended/revoked, and people currently in progress of committing other crimes are stopped by basic traffic stops. Think about how apeshit this thread would go if a cop had stopped the Charleston shooter for speeding but had to let him go because he was "not a violent criminal" and refused to provide a drivers license or be identified as required by law. Hey, no harm right? Since the cop didn't recognize the guy and for all the cop knew he was just "exercising his rights to not follow the law" or some poo poo. Had to let him drive on, no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Good thing he executed him to stop his heinous crime spree. Whew. E: Yeah put out a warrant for the owner of the car. Then you go to that guy's house "hey was your car stolen? No? Oh have you let anyone else drive it, oh your kid? Hey what's he look like? Oh, the same guy?" Wow police work! Nah just better shoot everyone at a traffic stop just in case, wouldn't want to have to go do work or anything. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good thing he executed him to stop his heinous crime spree. Whew. Resisting arrest and felony assault of a police officer is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Untagged posted:Resisting arrest and felony assault of a police officer is a hell of a drug. I didn't realize swinging your dick around and tasing a nonviolent resistor who is already facedown on the ground was standard arrest procedure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good thing he executed him to stop his heinous crime spree. Whew. Tell me again how the guy was shot the second he refused to provide his drivers license? Oh that's right. But hey you could save a lot of time on the police work if the guy would have just provided his DL, or after being ordered to step from the car had done so without any issues. Seems logical to normal people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:But hey you could save a lot of time on the police work if the guy would have just provided his DL, or after being ordered to step from the car had done so without any issues. Seems logical to normal people. And my point, once again, that cop apologists don't want to address is that teenagers will sass cops and will refuse to provide a DL sometimes, and the justice system should be capable of dealing with that without leaving a trail of dead bodies. "Oh well don't talk back to cops and this won't happen" is the kind of good personal advice that stupid people mistake for a system-wide solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And my point, once again, that cop apologists don't want to address is that teenagers will sass cops and will refuse to provide a DL sometimes, and the justice system should be capable of dealing with that without leaving a trail of dead bodies. Pairing up officers probably would have defused this situation. This kid should be in jail for being an idiot but instead he's dead because he managed to scare the poo poo out of a lone cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:They are ordered from the vehicle, cuffed, and arrested. That's how the justice system deals with driving without a license and sassing the cop who stops you. The issue in this case is how the justice system deals with some moron who decides to jump the cop when his degree in constitutional law from YouTube University fails him. Yes, exactly. The police department failed this officer and this kid in multiple ways that lead to a needless death. When the system fails like this, maybe we should look at the training, funding, and support for the (supposed) professional adults placed in a position of authority where emotional and violent situations can occur rather than going "good shoot, welp once all teenagers everywhere stop being poo poo heads this won't happen". The fact that a cop ended up in a position where he was alone and feared for his life from an unarmed kid he had prone on the ground is an abject failure at all levels. Notice how most of the apologists don't ever address this point though. They poo poo-and-run with "hey that kid was pretty dumb, shouldn't have talked back" or complain that I really want dead cops, but the second I post substantial criticisms or suggestions for reform to improve the safety of suspects and officers *poof* where do they go? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:Tell me again how the guy was shot the second he refused to provide his drivers license? Oh that's right. Just comply. Compliance is normalcy, citizen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just comply. Compliance is normalcy, citizen. Comply, and challenge it later. That's what every civil rights organization in the U.S. tells you to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just comply. When a cop asks you for ID after pulling you over you should give it to him. Because you are legally obligated to and because if you don't he will probably arrest you for being an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Okay. Turns out people are people and 100% of dumb kids don't comply. What now. Do we talk about reforms that could improve public safety and protect the officer as well as the offender, or do we just jerk ourselves off about how dumb that kid was and laugh that he got shot for being so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Comply, and challenge it later. That's what every civil rights organization in the U.S. tells you to do. Rent-A-Cop posted:Good advice from SedanChair here. Comply! Comply or be neutralized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do we talk about reforms that could improve public safety and protect the officer as well as the offender, or do we just jerk ourselves off
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Good advice from SedanChair here. If people were only getting arrested for not listening to cops then this thread wouldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Comply! Comply or be neutralized. Booourns posted:If people were only getting arrested for not listening to cops then this thread wouldn't exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: Yeah put out a warrant for the owner of the car. Then you go to that guy's house "hey was your car stolen? No? Oh have you let anyone else drive it, oh your kid? Hey what's he look like? Oh, the same guy?" Wow police work! The 4th amendment provides guidance on how warrants are issued. quote:"No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sezed." It's commonly accepted in law enforcement that it is reasonable to believe that a vehicle is being driven by the registered owner and supports an investigative stop of the vehicle, but it would not rise to the level of probable cause to get a warrant for the registered owner of a vehicle based on a crime committed by the driver of a vehicle. I've never seen of nor heard of such a thing in my nearly 10 years in law enforcement. If you have not identified the driver of the vehicle, you do not have probable cause on a specific person to swear out a warrant. That's just not how it works, no matter how simple you think the answer might be. You don't need a warrant to go talk to the registered owner of the vehicle and get that information, but the suggestion you're making is predicated on setting a new precedent where law enforcement simply lets people go whenever they choose to disobey lawful commands. Assuming we were to take that path and allow people to just refuse to comply and walk away whenever they wanted, why do you think having a warrant would change anything? If someone can simply choose to disobey the police and walk away when they've been lawfully stopped, why would they suddenly comply when they have a warrant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Comply! Comply or be neutralized. You can simultaneously think that you should comply with police officers, even if they're in the wrong, and also not think that non-compliance deserves you being shot. I mean, if you're not a literal crazy person, you can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I assume they can just laugh this off like any other UN or otherwise international NGO's damning of their behavior? I'm curious how other nations stack up personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:You don't need a warrant to go talk to the registered owner of the vehicle and get that information, but the suggestion you're making is predicated on setting a new precedent where law enforcement simply lets people go whenever they choose to disobey lawful commands. Assuming we were to take that path and allow people to just refuse to comply and walk away whenever they wanted, why do you think having a warrant would change anything? If someone can simply choose to disobey the police and walk away when they've been lawfully stopped, why would they suddenly comply when they have a warrant? Yeah I misspoke, it wouldn't be a warrant, it would be going to talk to the owner of the car to find out who was driving it. If the person isn't an imminent threat to the public and runs away, and you don't have enough backup to non-lethally bring him in, and you already have the plates of the car he was driving, yeah you should just go pick him up later instead of gunning him down to make sure he doesn't get away. Is this not obvious? I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk away from cops whenever they choose. But cops shouldn't be put in situations where they have to bring someone in alone, and if that situation does happen and the person isn't a danger why would you want a cop to risk his own life and the life of the suspect just so he doesn't have to go get the kid later and cite him for driving without a license? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
The obvious solution is for the police to just gun you down as soon as they pull you over. It saves everyone the time and they're clearly justified because you've likely done something illegal or at least stupid at some point in your life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk away from cops whenever they choose. But cops shouldn't be put in situations where they have to bring someone in alone, and if that situation does happen and the person isn't a danger why would you want a cop to risk his own life and the life of the suspect just so he doesn't have to go get the kid later and cite him for driving without a license?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk away from cops whenever they choose. But cops shouldn't be put in situations where they have to bring someone in alone, and if that situation does happen and the person isn't a danger why would you want a cop to risk his own life and the life of the suspect just so he doesn't have to go get the kid later and cite him for driving without a license? It's almost as if police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation? I agree with you that cops shouldn't have to bring in people alone, but you're blind to the reality of policing in America if you think a large percentage of cops have back-up available within minutes. What civil liability would the cop face for letting a known unlicensed driver go if that driver continues on to crash into another car and kill a sweet little old lady or a mini van transporting a soccer mom and kids? The Shep fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:It's almost as if police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation? Don't cops have official immunity in those situations? So, um, none? I think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem is that if you do this the public is going to freak the first time someone just drives away with a trunk full of kidnapped kids, cocaine, and automatic weapons. Then we'll get the Saving Our Children From Satanic Terrorism Act of 2017 that will make everything other than a fully transparent Smart ForTwo illegal and require us all to drive in our underpants. Nice strawman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Mark 12:17 is very clear on this issue. Literally comply to the point of martyring yourself!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:It's almost as if police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation? Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think the police had any idea he was going back to shoot his wife some more, since they had just talked him into releasing his daughter. Eight seconds isn't a long time... You are arguing against each other... Maybe something about these cases is different. Hmmmm??? I'm going to save that "8 seconds isn't a long time" quote forever. I figure it will come in handy within the next few days or a week at most. 
Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't cops have official immunity in those situations? So, um, none? I think? http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2007/11/06/67867-woman-21-blames-tempe-for-her-dui-crash/ "The lawsuit filed on behalf of 21-year-old Korie Hoke of Mesa contends her drunken-driving accident and resulting injuries, said to include brain trauma, could have been prevented if not for police negligence for leaving her unattended." You're kidding yourself if you think police officers, departments, and local governments wouldn't be opened up to a ton of civil liability and scrutiny if they routinely let people go that should have been stopped and arrested. We do have immunity from actions taken under authority but those actions must be held reasonable and justified. That immunity would apply to a suspect being injured while being arrested, or the typical "good samaritan" laws which would protect police (and civilians in some cases) from liability when someone is injured during a life-saving technique, such as CPR. Pohl posted:You are arguing against each other... I don't even know what cases you're talking about, I am simply responding to what I thought were inaccurate suggestions as to what generic police procedure should be. I'm not going to go back and read 167 pages of mostly bad and wrong posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:It's almost as if police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation? Yes, and just like pilots who are also called on to make split-second judgments in rapidly evolving circumstances, when a wrong decision is made, we should look at all of the circumstances and procedures to determine how that wrong decision got made and what reforms we can make to reduce the occurrences of these wrong decisions, since any system that can't deal with human error except by killing a human is a bad system. Cmdr. Shepard posted:I agree with you that cops shouldn't have to bring in people alone, but you're blind to the reality of policing in America if you think a large percentage of cops have back-up available within minutes. I am obviously not blind to this reality since one of my specific criticisms of policing in America is that we expect cops to bring people in alone and then shrug when he loses control of the situation and has to shoot his way out instead of having support. You might as well tell me I'm blind to the reality of poor training in American police because I said he should have been better trained to maintain physical control of a prone unarmed teen so he didn't panic the kid and then somehow lose a fight with a tasered face-down teenager.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Eight seconds isn't a long time, especially if the police aren't already in a position where they can get a clean shot on him from the other side of the car. How much time do they need? 1 second like the guy holding a walmart item in the store? 2 seconds like the child playing in the park? 6 seconds like the pregnant distraught woman? 8 seconds like the guy carrying his wood carving knife? or 30 minutes like the police officer murdering his wife at high noon on main street? Is that enough time to react?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You might as well tell me I'm blind to the reality of poor training in American police because I said he should have been better trained to maintain physical control of a prone unarmed teen so he didn't panic the kid and then somehow lose a fight with a tasered face-down teenager. This is still the most amazing part of the incident to me. Is literally every cop a murderous version of Officer Farva or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Nice strawman. SedanChair posted:Literally comply to the point of martyring yourself! Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem is that if you do this the public is going to freak the first time someone just drives away with a trunk full of kidnapped kids, cocaine, and automatic weapons. Then we'll get the Saving Our Children From Satanic Terrorism Act of 2017 that will make everything other than a fully transparent Smart ForTwo illegal and require us all to drive in our underpants. Yeah that's a tough one. Maybe we should come up with sort of device that the cop could use to follow the person, we could even equip it with a communication device so they could call for the assistance of other cops. Then they could follow the escapee instead of being left standing there powerless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You are Poe's Law. I'm sorry, I can't tell when you are writing parody or when you are writing sincerely because you are all over the place. What is the law that describes that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Yeah that's a tough one. Maybe we should come up with sort of device that the cop could use to follow the person, we could even equip it with a communication device so they could call for the assistance of other cops. Then they could follow the escapee instead of being left standing there powerless. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so mean to poor Pohl, as I am now hoisted by my own petard. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You might as well tell me I'm blind to the reality of poor training in American police because I said he should have been better trained to maintain physical control of a prone unarmed teen so he didn't panic the kid and then somehow lose a fight with a tasered face-down teenager. It's easy to judge a 1v1 in hindsight but it's a slippery slope argument to just say that the officer should've been more physically fit. There is a physically fit yet small framed female on my department, and no amount of strength training or fitness will allow her to go toe-to-toe with a male literally twice her size. You won't get any argument from me that there should be better physical fitness standards in police work, but in order to have a diverse pool of applicants we have to hire people that aren't all 6'5 roid ragers. All I can tell you is that unless I'm going 1v1 with someone much smaller than me, I'm not going to easily overpower a combative individual - it is simply not easy to take a combative person into custody against their will especially if they're equal in size and strength to you. Backup can arrive in a minute maybe, but a full minute fighting someone is an eternity. Full disclosure, and not trying to troll - I am not familiar with the full details of the specific case you're referencing. (i.e. I don't know how long the fight was or what the level of resistance was). The Shep fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Are you sure you're not trying to troll? Better training is a slippery slope to what, better trained cops? More personnel funding is a slippery slope to what, more cops having partners and not having to tangle 1-on-1? I feel like I'm talking about the circumstances contributing to a fatal plane crash with people who are going "whoa whoa, you want to require copilots, you're obviously blind to the realities of air travel where we don't want to do that" and "hey requiring 8 hours of sleep before flying, sometimes people have trouble sleeping, that's a slippery slope" and "whoah training for emergencies, but pilots shouldn't have to get a faulty plane to the ground safely, if it was someone else's fuckup that's on them" in some bizarre alternate universe where everyone is more concerned with burnishing the reputations of our pilots in blue than actually preventing accidental deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm confused as to your point, because you seem to be advocating for the police pursuing and apprehending people who resist arrest. Well as you said people would freak if they drove away with a trunk full of straw, I'm just trying to help solve this dilemma. If a lone cop feels he cannot detain a teenager without bullets, perhaps following him until assistance arrives could work. If it's a scared teenager two or three mobile police following him would most likely result in him realizing he's hosed and if he is a terrorist teenager with a military depot in his trunk it would be far safer having multiple police, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you sure you're not trying to troll? Better training is a slippery slope to what, better trained cops? More personnel funding is a slippery slope to what, more cops having partners and not having to tangle 1-on-1? I interpreted your remarks on better trained to include physical fitness, so I responded to that because it comes up so often in these types of threads. If I was trying to troll I guess I would suggest that cops just get warrants for anyone that chooses to not comply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:25
|
|