The behaviour of US police officers

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

It is a well-known phenomenon that victims of childhood abuse/neglect, like victims of racism, will often internalize the memes directed at them. Thus the rather otherwise inexplicable undercurrent present in US Black culture of preference for lighter tone skin, for example. Finding one of these in one's own thoughts is often cause for great pain and consternation, leading potentially to even more self-hate.

Whereas "Black conservative" is no example of drawing on and acquiescing to the above, "Black Trump supporter" most definitely is (or of personal stupidity).

As I keep saying, black conservatives are a dime a dozen - there's actually a rich variety of church leaders, small business owners, teachers, and the like that push so-called "traditional" values, low taxes, hard work, blah blah blah. You can find them historically in people like Booker T. Washington, and in exclusionary conservatives like Louis Farrakhan.

The overwhelming majority of black conservative voters, go for democrats. And this is due to the overt hostility that republicans have shown towards black people, and their love of obvious grifters like Burlap and Quartz who ride painful, "crows from Dumbo" stereotypes for profit (and exploitation of the clearly mentally ill, like one Kanye West, but considering who the president is, this appears to be equal-opportunity on this front).

Similarly, whether out of a need to prove themselves to their cop "brothers", a feeling of embarrassment towards other black people, or whatever, I can assure you that many black people, when dealing with a white cop, will immediately think "Well, at least he/she isn't black.", because they're known to be more violent and on-edge than white officers are.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

nope.

You did - go back and you will see I swapped police with non-police in what Shutit said and then it was no longer reasonable. Because you hold non-police to a higher standard than you hold the police.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Agreed.

It was your own words, your own comments.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

As I keep saying, black conservatives are a dime a dozen - there's actually a rich variety of church leaders, small business owners, teachers, and the like that push so-called "traditional" values, low taxes, hard work, blah blah blah. You can find them historically in people like Booker T. Washington, and in exclusionary conservatives like Louis Farrakhan.

The overwhelming majority of black conservative voters, go for democrats. And this is due to the overt hostility that republicans have shown towards black people, and their love of obvious grifters like Burlap and Quartz who ride painful, "crows from Dumbo" stereotypes for profit (and exploitation of the clearly mentally ill, like one Kanye West, but considering who the president is, this appears to be equal-opportunity on this front).

Similarly, whether out of a need to prove themselves to their cop "brothers", a feeling of embarrassment towards other black people, or whatever, I can assure you that many black people, when dealing with a white cop, will immediately think "Well, at least he/she isn't black.", because they're known to be more violent and on-edge than white officers are.

Seriously? Aren't you opening the door on the "blacks are inherently more violent debate"? You can't write that and claim it only applies when they wear the blue.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Seriously? Aren't you opening the door on the "blacks are inherently more violent debate"? You can't write that and claim it only applies when they wear the blue.

Why not?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

You did - go back and you will see I swapped police with non-police in what Shutit said and then it was no longer reasonable. Because you hold non-police to a higher standard than you hold the police.

Self defence law in Wisconsin (I pick that one only because I read it recently) states the following:

Quote:

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Would that not be the same defence that both the police and civilians would rely upon?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Seriously? Aren't you opening the door on the "blacks are inherently more violent debate"? You can't write that and claim it only applies when they wear the blue.

I don't see that the word "inherently" is warranted here. Either black officer are or aren't on average more likely to mistreat a black suspect. "Inherently" read to me to be adding a requirement that this be due to some kind of genetic predisposition.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

It was your own words, your own comments.

Could you unpack that a bit? I just posted the self defence law in Wisconsin. What am I missing in terms of there being a different standard?

[Darat]

Here is the run of posts:

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure. What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them? There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

Originally Posted by Darat

It gets even better, I'm walking down the street and I know that I've not committed any crime, a police officer shouts at me to stop, that would make me very scared, I would be thinking they might decide to shoot me even though I am committing no crime and even if I obey their non-legal order, I pull out my legally owned and carried pistol and shoot the police officer dead.

I was scared so it must be fine I killed the officer.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Somehow most people manage not to get shot by the police when they are ordered to stop. Similarly the vast majority of non-criminals don't start shooting under these circumstances. You would therefore be acting well outside the norm in terms of your threat assessment and reaction. I think you would have an uphill struggle in defending your actions.

Originally Posted by Darat

What do you expect me to do, wait to find out what the police officer intended to do when they get up close to me?

[shuttlt]

Darat. It depends whether they have a reasonable belief. If I am minding my own business and pass a cop in the street, they can't shoot me just because I approached them. If you meet a crazy person who tells you that he can see demons inside you and who keeps coming towards you despite your warnings and now he starts to run at you, then you might well be entitled to shoot him. It comes down to whether there is a reasonable belief. I don't know how many times I can restate the same thing. You don't have to wait to find out if in fact he just wants to show you a cool Pokemon he has caught.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Darat

Here is the run of posts:

My response was to go ahead and give it a try.

If the DA finds no reason to charge you after examining the facts, in most cases I would be fine with that.
If the DA decides to charge you- then a jury finds that your fear was reasonable after considering the event in its' entirety, I would accept their judgment as well.

You use the word "reasonable" in your imaginary scenario- then describe a situation that makes it appear that you were not reasonable it is your hypothetical that implies a different standard of reasonableness- not anything I have posted..

[SuburbanTurkey]

The real question becomes, will you be prosecuted, will you risk jury trial or plead out, and will a jury convict?

For cops, they tend to have a special advantage that most citizens dont. Prosecutors are extremely reluctant to pursue cases against cops because it is politically dangerous, and juries are extremely generous to cops because we are a nation of bootlickers. Even in cases where the cops actions are plainly criminal, it's an open question whether they will be prosecuted vigorously or convicted by a jury.

Cops don't have any de jure special privilege to misuse force with impunity, but de facto they absolutely do.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I know you think it is working amazingly well. I don’t think so. I don’t believe you would think so if these “unavoidable errors” were your son, or brother, or friend instead of a cold statistic.

You suggest that ones intimacy with a given situation affects how they view it.
I agree with that.
Might I suggest that had you been the victim of a crime, or if you resided in a high-crime area, your own assessment of the importance of the police, and the way they perform their job might also be altered.

In fact, I find it a source of frustration that so many posters in these threads blithely pass judgment on the police as an "enemy of the community" while living their lives safely removed from most of the violence and aggravation that the police protect us from.
Your neighborhood might remain livable if the police were defunded- mine most likely would not- and is in fact already seeing a spike in crime as the police back off on their more agressive policing.

If it is necessary for me to have had a loved one be killed by a police error in order to have a "proper" perspective on how dreadful the police are, It is equally valid that you must sink the entirety of your savings into a home in a high crime area and live there in order to gain the "proper" perspective on what the police actually encounter on a day-to-day basis.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Prison kills prisoner through medical neglect.

In April, She Was Jailed on a Probation Violation. By June, She Was Dead
Holly Barlow-Austin suffered horrifying medical neglect at a Texarkana detention facility, according to video evidence in a new lawsuit.

Quote:

Three days later, her husband went to the jail personally to hand over her medications, which were correctly labeled and showed up-to-date prescriptions. They included pills to manage HIV, depression, and bipolar disorder, as well as an antifungal. But jail staff initially withheld some medications and only gave her others sporadically, in a way that undermined their efficacy, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

...


In response, according to the lawsuit, a nurse on staff said that Barlow-Austin "pretends to be weak" and "knows how to play the sickly role."

https://reason.com/2020/09/16/in-apr...-she-was-dead/

This woman was arrested on a probation violation and jailed. She entered the prison with a well managed HIV infection and healthy white blood cell counts. The prison refused to administer her prescribed drugs and labeled her a malingerer while her health spiraled until she died.

Same private prison company that is accused of mass sterilization of immigrant detainees.

Quote:

Previously LaSalle Corrections had been in the news after 20-year-old Morgan Angerbauer died of ketoacidosis, a condition which results from high blood sugar, while in custody at the Bi-State jail in 2016. She was denied medication to adequately manage her diabetes. Her pleas for help were ignored by staff despite the fact that she was unable to stand and was vomiting for hours, according to a lawsuit reported by the Texarkana Gazette. Lawyers for Angerbauer's family eventually reached a settlement in a wrongful death suit with LaSalle.

Routine medical abuse and neglect, the American way!

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Cops don't have any de jure special privilege to misuse force with impunity, but de facto they absolutely do.

A few reasons for that off the top of my head:
1. There are many things that cops are expected to do, that a civilian typically can't reasonably do. I mentioned earlier pulling over a car. Walking up to a car and ordering the occupant to keep their hands on the wheel. A cop can do those things without acting outside the bounds of what we expect cops to do, if civilians do those kind of things I think they are going to have a higher bar in terms of evidencing that they were acting reasonably.
2. The situation is not what it should be, but typically the cops will have better evidence of the circumstances that led up to a shooting, and maybe including the shooting, than you will. It could be communications with a dispatcher, dashcam, bodycam etc... You and I are much more likely to be relying on our word.
3. If the cop doesn't have a bad history, and there isn't other evidence that they were acting unreasonably, then quite a bit of weight will be put on their account of events. There are certainly civilians who that would also apply to, but the typical unarmed person who the cops shoot dead is a schizophrenic, or someone with a history of violence and crime.... so even if they live, they may not be an ideal witness.

Short of some kind of equity system where we insist that the proportion of cops going to prison for shooting people is matched in some way with civilians who successfully claim self defence, or civilians who shoot cops successfully claiming self defence, I don't know what could be done to remove the cops advantages at trial.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Steve

Why not?

I kinda get your point but still struggle with assertion (if such an assertion exists from Mumbles) that a blue uniform is the difference.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Cops don't have any de jure special privilege to misuse force with impunity, but de facto they absolutely do.

This is at the core of it.

It should be a central principle that every right to meaningfully exist requires there to be an effective remedy. Otherwise it is a nullity.

However, especially with police misconduct, we've allowed the law to reach a place where this principle is totally ignored in favor of formalism based in legal fictions.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

I kinda get your point but still struggle with assertion (if such an assertion exists from Mumbles) that a blue uniform is the difference.

It isn't unique that people who fear that assumptions based on their identity will be seen as evidence that they don't fit in will take pains to contradict those assumptions as much as possible.

The ones most worried about their place in the pack are going to be the loudest and most zealous supporters of the pack.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Seriously? Aren't you opening the door on the "blacks are inherently more violent debate"? You can't write that and claim it only applies when they wear the blue.

Can and do. In every other profession I've seen, the most hysterical, scream and throw things over nothing, crowd have invariably been conservative white men. True of doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, janitors, teachers, and so forth. Black men will hunch over, take extra care to smile, raise their (our) vocal pitch, dress better than colleagues, show up earlier, do everything possible to ensure that nobody will suddenly decide that they're "violent" by, say, briefly frowning.

The only two groups of seriously violence prone black guys I've known are cops, and gang members. Imagine that.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Can and do. In every other profession I've seen, the most hysterical, scream and throw things over nothing, crowd have invariably been conservative white men. True of doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, janitors, teachers, and so forth. Black men will hunch over, take extra care to smile, raise their (our) vocal pitch, dress better than colleagues, show up earlier, do everything possible to ensure that nobody will suddenly decide that they're "violent" by, say, briefly frowning.

The only two groups of seriously violence prone black guys I've known are cops, and gang members. Imagine that.

It isn't difficult. There is little to choose between the two.

I would not be surprised if the gang members were the ones who scored too high on an intelligence test to be accepted as cops.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

It isn't difficult. There is little to choose between the two.

I would not be surprised if the gang members were the ones who scored too high on an intelligence test to be accepted as cops.

Remind me again - the gangs are the ones that you have to kill someone to become part of the inner gang and get a tattoo......?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Darat

Remind me again - the gangs are the ones that you have to kill someone to become part of the inner gang and get a tattoo......?

No, they're usually small, and the only real initiation is to let the other members beat the crap out of you for a while (a woman that wants to join can usually let the guys gangbang her, but she'll be considered a lesser member). And while they don't let people that are "too smart" into the gang, it's usually because they want the kid to succeed, and know that joining will only drag him or her down.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

No, they're usually small, and the only real initiation is to let the other members beat the crap out of you for a while (a woman that wants to join can usually let the guys gangbang her, but she'll be considered a lesser member). And while they don't let people that are "too smart" into the gang, it's usually because they want the kid to succeed, and know that joining will only drag him or her down.

Cops, on the other hand, don't want anyone too smart because they might blow the sweet deal the rest of the cops have.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Cop found drunk, slumped over driver’s seat in patrol car won’t be charged because case can’t be proven in court, DA says

Quote:

A Colorado cop who was found drunk and unconscious inside a marked patrol car while the engine was running will keep his job and won’t face any criminal charges.

Officer Nate Meier, who was in uniform and armed during the incident nearly a year ago, essentially beat the justice system because the Aurora Police Department gave him preferential treatment at the scene and failed to collect evidence for a potential DUI investigation, a furious prosecutor said Thursday.

Meier eventually admitted to drinking vodka before starting his shift that day, but he was only demoted and suspended without pay.

Waiting for these good cops I keep hearing about to show up for work.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...J-LpGk4dGny2yI

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why not fall back and assess the situation?
Work out who is firing, where from and why.
Locate and identify a target.

Or, as is usual in every other civilised country, knock on the door and identify yourself.
Get rid of rules that will inevitably lead to the police shooting people.

With that kind of attitude how do you expect to pass the mandatory killology courses the police take?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's ok, leadership from the top is that getting gun downed in the street is "retribution". Expect more ambushes of cops. Some might call that retribution too.

Of course that was an ambush by an "armed friendly" in police speak, not someone upset with police brutality.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The real question becomes, will you be prosecuted, will you risk jury trial or plead out, and will a jury convict?

For cops, they tend to have a special advantage that most citizens dont. Prosecutors are extremely reluctant to pursue cases against cops because it is politically dangerous, and juries are extremely generous to cops because we are a nation of bootlickers. Even in cases where the cops actions are plainly criminal, it's an open question whether they will be prosecuted vigorously or convicted by a jury.

Cops don't have any de jure special privilege to misuse force with impunity, but de facto they absolutely do.

They also have the union footing the bill for their defense.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

It isn't unique that people who fear that assumptions based on their identity will be seen as evidence that they don't fit in will take pains to contradict those assumptions as much as possible.

The ones most worried about their place in the pack are going to be the loudest and most zealous supporters of the pack.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Mumbles

... The only two groups of seriously violence prone black guys I've known are cops, and gang members. Imagine that.

Same situation in a White society over here, in the sense that gang membership/criminality, work in private security, and police work all recruit from the same demographic, with much turnover among categories. Of course, making it to cop is the best, as for some, in some places, it means graduating to the top of the criminal heap. The police routinely take bribes from pickpockets and shell game hucksters working major tourist areas (€50/day per plainclothes officer on the Barcelona Ramblas, according to the man who led the gang, his lips to my ears*), confiscate drugs for resale, and do the same with the goods of street vendors.

(*A suave Bulgarian gentleman who could take anything off you at will. He was very friendly toward me, behaved impeccably and spent money, and made my place off limits because he respected me for tossing all of this underlings out of the bar and being a "tough old man".)

[bruto]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Didn't the police open fire in this case after one of them had already been shot in the leg? They knew what they were shooting at and why. They were returning fire on somebody who they believed was a threat - Kenneth Walker.

Were they so blinded by whatever that they mistook an unarmed woman in bed for the man who was shooting to protect his home? I suggest that that excuse is very very thin and requires a presupposition that what the police do is always inherently correct.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by bruto

Were they so blinded by whatever that they mistook an unarmed woman in bed for the man who was shooting to protect his home? I suggest that that excuse is very very thin and requires a presupposition that what the police do is always inherently incoherently correct.

FTFY.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Bodycam video of the police shooting of an autistic 13 year old boy who was unarmed.

They ran him down some alleys and shot him while unarmed. Nothing seen on video justifies the volley of gunfire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM5S...TSfaqh&index=2

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Bodycam video of the police shooting of an autistic 13 year old boy who was unarmed.

They ran him down some alleys and shot him while unarmed. Nothing seen on video justifies the volley of gunfire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM5S...TSfaqh&index=2

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6, that is the police moto so it totally exonerates them.

Really what else did the mother expect from the police? This is why you don't call the police.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6, that is the police moto so it totally exonerates them.

Really what else did the mother expect from the police? This is why you don't call the police.

Assuming the mother didn't want her son to get shot, she strikes me as being very naïve about what the police are in the video. The things she says to these cops in the video seems like exactly the kind of thing that gets an unarmed, mentally unstable person shot.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The things she says to these cops in the video seems like exactly the kind of thing that gets an unarmed, mentally unstable person shot.

Only in the USA.

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Bodycam video of the police shooting of an autistic 13 year old boy who was unarmed.

They ran him down some alleys and shot him while unarmed. Nothing seen on video justifies the volley of gunfire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM5S...TSfaqh&index=2

Systemic racism.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6, that is the police moto so it totally exonerates them.

Such a decision-making process wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't a lie. But when they blow it and it comes time to be "judged by 12" - that risk they claim they were willing to take - suddenly oh no we can't have that, it's totally unfair!

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Assuming the mother didn't want her son to get shot, she strikes me as being very naïve about what the police are in the video. The things she says to these cops in the video seems like exactly the kind of thing that gets an unarmed, mentally unstable person shot.

Not here in Finland, I would totally trust the police in a situation like this. I mean even with that "Islamist" (the person was mentally disturbed) in Turku brandishing his knife and about to attack them, they only once shot him in the thigh to get him alive. An unarmed autistic boy would never get shot.

[llwyd]

Ps. This was the occasion - a single shot to thigh plus taser. And he was within metres of them. I guess in the US, the situation would have been handled bit otherwise...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Turku_attack

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Not here in Finland, I would totally trust the police in a situation like this. I mean even with that "Islamist" (the person was mentally disturbed) in Turku brandishing his knife and about to attack them, they only once shot him in the thigh to get him alive. An unarmed autistic boy would never get shot.

I should have been more clear I was speaking about US cops. It boggles my mind that any American would not understand that saying your emotionally unstable son harbors anti-cop and violent attitudes to the police is very likely a death sentence.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

Vanessa Bryant has sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over deputies sharing “unauthorized” photos of the scene of the helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe Bryant, their daughter and seven others.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...t-crash-photos

This came to light when one such cop was overheard by a bartender discussing and showing off these personal photos to his date.

Quote:

According to the suit, Villanueva attempted to cover up the taking of the graphic photographs by going to the sheriff’s substation that responded to the crash and telling deputies if they deleted the images they would not face discipline.

Supervisor's response is to delete evidence of misconduct and promise no repercussions. There was no official investigation until a story ran in the LA Times, because police accountability is something we have to extract from these organizations against their will.

Pigs gonna pig.