Jump to content

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

The real question on my mind, is why do we have a veteran officer so jumpy they have a panic reaction instead of a measured reaction?

 

What do "veteran officers" actually do most of the time?

 

How often do they get into violent conflict situations, as opposed to how much of their time is spent doing entirely routine things?

Most police officers aren't Special Forces grade combatants.

 

Digression: many years ago I worked as a civilian computer programmer for a law enforcement agency. We had police officers attached to us to work as intermediaries between us civilians and the people out doing the job (and, in some cases taking the bribes - but that's another story). Anyway, at lunchtime one day, one of these officers arrested someone - a drunk who had collapsed on the ground in front of a pub near Police headquarters.

The Computer Branch officers were uniformed, although many were older than the usual street cops, but stashed their guns in their lockers. Apparently most of them did wear their guns to and from work, "just in case". And in the case I described above, while going out to buy lunch.

So, put these guys into a violent situation, and what happens? Well, they weren't American cops, so ..., but the death rate of Black people in police custody in Australia is a long term cause of political activism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not going to try to get into an argument on this.  I'm just going to state things as I see them.  It will be kinda long.  I am a defense attorney and was a public defender for nearly a decade.  So

Honestly, no one has linked to the news story, that I've seen, and I have no idea what details of the story have been made public or not.   But from what others have said in this thread, the

Posted Images

1 hour ago, archer said:

As I pointed out earlier, Minnesota has two different manslaughter laws on the books: one is manslaughter with intent, the other is manslaughter without intent (which is the crime she's being charged with).

 

And as I pointed out, that second one won't pass the awareness requirement cited.

1 hour ago, assault said:

Most police officers aren't Special Forces grade combatants.

 

Neither am I, but I can remain calm while restraining a single individual with copious back up. That looked like a very routine situation. I've dealt with far hairier shtuff than that guy at work, and didn't get wound up about it. Neither do most of my co-workers. The ones who do get wound up, don't last.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, archer said:

 

My wife in watching the video says it's clear to her that the suspect was trying to drive off and that the officer had only seconds to act. I've only watched the video once but that wasn't my impression at all. It looked like to me that the officers had control of the situation and that she had plenty of time to have leisurely drawn her taser, looked at it, sighted the suspect, etc. before firing.

 

 

 

Even if the suspect was trying to drive off and the office had only seconds to act, that still doesn't justify employing a taser.  Pick him up later for resisting arrest on top of the supposed robbery charge they were cuffing him for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Even if the suspect was trying to drive off and the office had only seconds to act, that still doesn't justify employing a taser

 

I disagree. If a TASER can stop someone from speeding off in a car thinking police are in hot pursuit, then it's the safer option. Morons recklessly driving while running from police do far more damage each year than TASER activations do. The greater risk is letting someone drive away from the scene in those circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my words, but poingiant, and I cannot find the original source at the moment, but something to the effect of "why have we ever accepted that if you don't just automatically do what a police officer tells you, when he tells you, how he tells you, for as long as he tells you, that he has the right to murder you?  Why are we accepting that any police encounter can become an impromptu game of Simon Says and if you don't play perfectly, you get shot?

 

Again, not my words, but I approve of them heartily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Not my words, but poingiant, and I cannot find the original source at the moment, but something to the effect of "why have we ever accepted that if you don't just automatically do what a police officer tells you, when he tells you, hiw he tells you, for as long as he wants, that he has the right to murder you?  Why are we accepting that any police encounter can become an impromptu game of Simon Says and if you don't play perfectly, you get shot?

 

Again, not my words, but I approve of them heartily.


I saw it put as “it’s not okay for the untrained civilian to panic, but it’s fine if the trained cop with the gun does”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Old Man said:


I saw it put as “it’s not okay for the untrained civilian to panic, but it’s fine if the trained cop with the gun does”.

 

But is it the cop panicking?  Or is it the cop's response simply in line with the training he's gotten?  One of the themes last summer is the latter.  

 

I think a serious study along these lines could be interesting, because if panic really is an issue, then that leads to a separate set of questions, and a different mode of attack to reduce the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago officials are pleading for calm ahead of the release of the body cam video of the shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo. I understand it may show that the boy had dropped his gun and had his hands in the air when he was shot. If so, I don’t think there will be calm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Chicago officials are pleading for calm ahead of the release of the body cam video of the shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo. I understand it may show that the boy had dropped his gun and had his hands in the air when he was shot. If so, I don’t think there will be calm. 

The video was put on Twitter earlier today.  If there was a gun, I didn't see it though he was certainly raising his hands when he was shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Old Man said:

I saw it put as “it’s not okay for the untrained civilian to panic, but it’s fine if the trained cop with the gun does”.

 

I always thought it was a bad idea to arm panicky people.

59 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

 

Seems counterproductive for protestors. You'd think they'd want their message to be heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, this is a tough situation.  :(

 

There were clearly 8 shots fired by the boy or the man he was with before the incident.  This video has slowed down footage.  If you look at this video at about the 14 sec mark, he is clearly not holding a gun at the moment he is shot.  There are other points at which it is slowed down.  However it also shows the gun right behind the fence.  If you look at the freeze frame footage released by the police you can see he does have a gun in his hand when he stops and as he turns it is gone.  It seems clear that at the angle he is standing near the fence he throws the gun behind the fence as he turns and then he is shot as he completes his turn with hands raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 8:36 AM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Ah, that explains the confusion in our previous conversation last night.

 

MSNBC was saying in their early prime time coverage yesterday that they'd already settled on charging her with second-degree manslaughter. 

 

I wasn't aware that wasn't common knowledge and so didn't understand why you kept bringing up "intent" when that'd already been completely eliminated as being a factor in the prosecution's case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, archer said:

so didn't understand why you kept bringing up "intent" when that'd already been completely eliminated as being a factor in the prosecution's case

 

Two things:

 

1. I hadn't read anything regarding the prosecution's findings at that point.

b) I used the word "intent" one time. I apologize for beating a dead horse like that. :dh:   :winkgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Starlord said:

Ok, this is a tough situation.  :(

 

Two things come to mind:

 

First, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. There was gunshot residue on the poor, innocent babe's hand. He was the shooter. So, the simplest way for him to have avoided becoming the victim of police violence was to not be a violent criminal. On the micro level. On the macro level: It's systemic racism that's lead to the situation where kids like him are forced into gangs at that age and made to do this shit. So, it's still racism. Just not necessarily on the cop's part.

 

Second, the cop did not wait very long for compliance before shooting. I've been in quite a few knockdown drag out fights at work, on camera, over the last few years at my current job. I will say this: Things you think took several minutes usually only took seconds. You're brain races during a fight/flight response, and your sense of time is pretty f-ed up. That could be a factor here. Investigators will have to investigate. Things just aren't as clean or cut and dry in real life sometimes. Listen to the audio from after the shooting, when the officer is trying to save the kid's life. He's clearly torn up about it. He's also a victim of the same cycle that the kid was caught in.

 

The whole situation sucks on this one.

 

 

Also, I hope the 21 year old accomplice is charged for his death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Two things come to mind:

 

First, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. There was gunshot residue on the poor, innocent babe's hand. He was the shooter. So, the simplest way for him to have avoided becoming the victim of police violence was to not be a violent criminal. On the micro level. On the macro level: It's systemic racism that's lead to the situation where kids like him are forced into gangs at that age and made to do this shit. So, it's still racism. Just not necessarily on the cop's part.

 

I may have missed the part where the victim was a violent criminal.  Did he shoot someone?  Did he shoot at someone?  Is it remotely possible that gunshot residue could have come from another firearm, one that was pointed directly at him from ten feet away when it was fired?

 

I understand that interpretations vary, even when things are on video, but this is what I saw:

 

Cop: "Stop!  Drop the gun!"

 

Kid: stops, drops the gun

 

Cop: shoots

 

Kid: dies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...