|
it was perfectly legal, maybe you shouldn't be so overemotional. while it's bad to look at from a laymans pov, it's not unreasonable conduct if you make the reasonable assumption the cops were just overexcited idiots acting with their best possible intentions, and you can't prove to a legal standard they were trying to murder him as opposed to thinking he might have had a skull thrice as thick as a normal mans so it's churlish to assume that it was brutality. the system might enable some hypothetical bad behavior and while statically there is some evidence everything is awful, if you change anything, it will ruin things for everyone so nothing can be done. The system works. The system works. The system works. did I cover all the bases (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
I dislike in these sorts of circumstances how the reasonableness of a homeowner in these situations is regarded as irrelevant; if the officer is deemed to have acted legally, then no matter how reasonable it would be for a person to not trust them, a lack of compliance is indefensible. On the flip side, not only would such an officer in that situation be given a complete pass regardless of how unreasonable or otherwise incompetent they were behaving, but illegal conduct on the part of the officer can be defended as long as the officer had "good intentions" or whatnot, or if the officer believed what they were doing was legal, even if said belief was a pretty boneheaded one. It's annoying to me since I think the question of effectiveness or competence on the part of the actions of law enforcement should be bought up a bit more often in cases such as this, where reasonableness is a factor. Even if the officer here had, say, seen some kind of meth lab inside the house, the correct course of action would have been to get an actual warrant, and maybe bring backup or elect to follow some kind of route that wouldn't leave people dead, instead of deciding it was a great idea to barge into a house, solo, and get in a fistfight with a dude in an unknown tactical situation, due to some fear that the homeowner would be able to destroy all the evidence and then the bad guys would get away. I imagine the officer is going to be able to elude some consequences of his actions by claiming he was in fear for his life or something (hence the emphasis on the dead guy "going for the taser"), and I think it really should be brought up more just how much danger the officer put himself in for no good reason, to undermine the whole idea that such behavior is some sad necessity needed to ensure a functional police force. Plus, as was brought up, if the officer's not punished for this behavior, it undermines a lot of things related to needing warrants or limits on police conduct in general.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Why train guns on her, then? I thought firearms training dictated you don't point guns at things you do not want to kill, and it seems a great way to get the person you're trying to "rescue" killed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I feel a big issue that causes friction is that people misunderstand why people are mad at cops not being charged. It's not a pure legal issue that exists in a vacuum; it's a moral sort of anger. Take the McDonald cops for instance. Legally, they may be untouchable. And legally, it's "wrong" to claim they ought to have the book thrown at them, for a variety of correct-and-pedantic issues. But you loving know they erased the footage and you're a complete fool if you're going to assume "not guilty" means "innocent", and an rear end in a top hat to boot if you talk down to people angry over this. De jure is not synonymous with de facto, especially in regards to advantages people have in the legal system. The police have a variety of powers and privileges that, when abused, grant them a great amount of leeway in eluding justice. No other group of conspirators could be able to get in and delete the footage; if an employee had resisted them in fears of the footage being mishandled, the legal fiction so strongly assumes that police are always good, that there's no way that such a view from the employee could be regarded as "reasonable". And the anger at police also comes out due to how much effort is spent ensuring their "fair" treatment, that others (including targets of law enforcement) have no chance of getting. To complain about cop rights being violated in the clamour to punish these badged criminals comes of as crocodile tears in the greater context of a legal reality that holds within it vastly different treatment of offenders depending on class, status, and power. In my mind, police ought to be held under extreme scrutiny; as the legal system depends on their correct conduct and ability to uphold trust with their communities, they will always have the ability to abuse their powers, and it undermines the entire legal system when they do so. The Chicago police department needs a good once over for this, and subcultures like the "thin blue line" needs to die.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 07:09
|
|