Police abuse
Comments
-
The natural spinoff.bootlegger10 said:
I'm anticipating a flurry of comments commending her for her bravery and outstanding police work (better her near death than some violent scumbag dead)."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation.bootlegger10 said:
Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?rgambs said:I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Thank you for sharing that..bootlegger10 said:0 -
Of course you'd want to think the worst of her.rgambs said:
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation.bootlegger10 said:
Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
WRONG!!!! Nice try....a perfect example of the thought process of one with the incurable disease.rgambs said:
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation.bootlegger10 said:
Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
This horrible situation will be happening more around the country unfortunately. Any many people are smiling and feeling real good about it...0 -
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?rgambs said:I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
It's always degrees and shades.
I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do.
I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur.
The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I'm juat keeping possibilities open.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Of course you'd want to think the worst of her.rgambs said:
Maybe it's true, maybe she is trying to spin the situation so she doesn't look bad and gets some sympathy for failing to control the situation.bootlegger10 said:
Who knows...sucks to be her no matter what, I hope she recovers well.
I don't take people at their word simply because of the clothes they wear to work.
Every profession has CYA procedures, when I worked intimately with surgeons and anesthesiologists I saw them contive CYA lies remarkably similar to this story with regularity.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest questionmuskydan said:
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6.PJ_Soul said:No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away!
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.Post edited by Cliffy6745 on0 -
I'm not so obtuse that I can't imagine the minor offences you speak of presenting themselves in various situations.rgambs said:
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?rgambs said:I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
It's always degrees and shades.
I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do.
I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur.
The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
I don't condone those types of behaviours, but at the same time... I don't get behind obnoxious behaviour that disrespects police, baristas, bank tellers, or people on the street. If you're lippy and you get denied service or even smacked... why would you be surprised?
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
There's a difference between a soldier and a police officer, Cliffy.Cliffy6745 said:
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest questionmuskydan said:
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6.PJ_Soul said:No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away!
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure and than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
They do not do the same jobs."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
There's no doubt abuse does happen No doubt corruption happens. It just seems like the bar for cops is set unrealistically high. With their job and responsibility it should be set higher, but not unrealistically high. It was hard to find exact data, but one report I saw said 2500 teachers lost their license over a 5 year study due to sexual misconduct. Doctors, investors, bankers, it seems like anything you can think of you will find a higher rate than expected for misconduct. Yet no one seems to care about any of that. Our local high school even has 2 teachers currently on paid leave, which usually means 1 thing. But no one cares, it isn't in the news or a big political discussion. The candidates don't talk about it, no one asked during the debates if student lives matter.rgambs said:
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?rgambs said:I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
It's always degrees and shades.
I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do.
I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur.
The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
With 600,000 police and millions of stops a year there is going to be some problems. When a story about a shooting or abuse comes out, it's reported as every day business and anyone who defends a cop is considered a cop sympathetic and usually ignored or put down. I have seen very few cases of truly unprovoked abuse or shootings. They are out there, you can find them. But for every one case of abuse I can probably find 10,000 instances where nothing went wrong. A traffic ticket, someone being questioned, police answering a call. There are thousands and thousands of stops EVERY day, and for some finding 1 or 2 cases every few days of abuse is enough proof? But you're going to see more and more cases like that cop in Chicago where they are afraid to react because you'll be labeled racist even for arresting a black man soon.0 -
Fair and agreed. Probably not the best metaphor, but my point remains. We can use the 9/11 one if that is more appropriate. Would any of those fire fighters have gone into the stairs if their #1 goal was to get home? Yes, going home at the end of the day should certainly be a massive priority, but they chose the job knowing that they may not. There is a level of risk and responsibility that goes along with that. I am not pointing to any of the situations being discussed in this thread, just the general philosophy of saving yourself at any and all costs. That is not what the job is, right?Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a difference between a soldier and a police officer, Cliffy.Cliffy6745 said:
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest questionmuskydan said:
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6.PJ_Soul said:No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away!
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure and than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
They do not do the same jobs.
0 -
I prefer to live in a society where words are not sufficient provocation to violence, particularly from those paid to uphold the rule of law.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm not so obtuse that I can't imagine the minor offences you speak of presenting themselves in various situations.rgambs said:
Most of the cases we discuss are pretty controversial, and I don't view such complicated matters in a binary, right or wrong, kind of way.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Tell me when you have ever been even remotely close to the middle?rgambs said:I did just eat a delicious triple pepper, yellow squash, onion, bean and jack cheese "fajita" that I grew/produced everything but the tortilla, so maybe I am out to lunch.
I understand and accept that the position I take carries with it a culture of unhealthy disrespect for police authority, if you can't understand and accept that the position you take carries with it an unhealthy submission to police authority, that's your problem.
Ultimately, I want to meet in the middle, where there is accountability in policing and respect for police. Can you say the same?
Do you think the current system sufficiently holds police accountable when they abuse power?
Should police officers' official account of an incident be considered above suspicion, or do you accept the conclusion suggested by the wealth of evidence that shows they are OFTEN untruthful?
I have blasted police in the Tamir Rice, Kelly Thomas, Daniel Shaver cases off the top of my head. Tell me one case that has presented itself on these threads where you have sided with the officer.
I seriously think you have never once sided with the officer on this forum. If you can point me to where you have... I can look at you in another light.
It's always degrees and shades.
I was against the officer ordering Bland out of her vehicle for sassing him, but when she violently resisted arrest, he did what he had to do.
I definitely think there was at least one case that I thought was cut and dry, not abuse, but I don't remember for sure.
I am usually less concerned with the big headline shootings and more concerned with the minor abuses that occur much more frequently and create the environment for the larger ones to occur.
The cops who smack people around for mouthing off and stuff like that. I honestly think you would be shocked Thirty at how much that happens if you were to consume media that chronicles those "minor" abuses.
I don't condone those types of behaviours, but at the same time... I don't get behind obnoxious behaviour that disrespects police, baristas, bank tellers, or people on the street. If you're lippy and you get denied service or even smacked... why would you be surprised?
No buts about it.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Here's my question: do you think first responders were running to the buildings because their job compelled them... or was it more of a human nature thing?Cliffy6745 said:
Fair and agreed. Probably not the best metaphor, but my point remains. We can use the 9/11 one if that is more appropriate. Would any of those fire fighters have gone into the stairs if their #1 goal was to get home? Yes, going home at the end of the day should certainly be a massive priority, but they chose the job knowing that they may not. There is a level of risk and responsibility that goes along with that. I am not pointing to any of the situations being discussed in this thread, just the general philosophy of saving yourself at any and all costs. That is not what the job is, right?Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a difference between a soldier and a police officer, Cliffy.Cliffy6745 said:
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest questionmuskydan said:
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6.PJ_Soul said:No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away!
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure and than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
They do not do the same jobs."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Probably a little bit of both, no? I don't know of any stories about citizens grabbing tools and running up those stairs. Perhaps there were some...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Here's my question: do you think first responders were running to the buildings because their job compelled them... or was it more of a human nature thing?Cliffy6745 said:
Fair and agreed. Probably not the best metaphor, but my point remains. We can use the 9/11 one if that is more appropriate. Would any of those fire fighters have gone into the stairs if their #1 goal was to get home? Yes, going home at the end of the day should certainly be a massive priority, but they chose the job knowing that they may not. There is a level of risk and responsibility that goes along with that. I am not pointing to any of the situations being discussed in this thread, just the general philosophy of saving yourself at any and all costs. That is not what the job is, right?Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
There's a difference between a soldier and a police officer, Cliffy.Cliffy6745 said:
Vastly different situation, but how about the 9/11 first responders? Was their #1 goal to get home alive or save people? Honest questionmuskydan said:
If police officer's are trained by this super duper philosohy they are risking their life, partners life, and citizens. The #1 goal of any first responder is to get home safe...period!! Judged by 12 then carried by 6.PJ_Soul said:No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away!
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I always get a kick out of the "family member" saying "why didn't the pooolice shoot the gun out of his hand"?
Edit: I am actually kind of disturbed by this philosophy. First responders (for the most part) work for the government to serve the people. Now I obviously completely agree that all first responders should be extremely concerned with their well being, but what if that was a solider who said something like that. What if that was a marine who said, hey, I may have broken the law and committed war crimes but all I was concerned with was getting home. That is not acceptable, so why would it be acceptable for police. You chose a profession where you may not go home at the end of the day, and I am incredibly grateful for it, but as part of your duty, you are expected to be better under pressure and than an average person and put your life on the line because that is what you chose to do. As awful as that is to say, it is true.
They do not do the same jobs.0 -
I didn't mean to take this off topic. That point just bugged me. I had a similar conversation with a great friend who is a Philly cop last Saturday. I just don't agree with that philosophy, I certainly get it, but I think police need to be held to a higher standard than most people. I said it before, but they chose that profession knowing the risks and responsibilities. I make mistakes in work and it can be cleaned up, a cop makes a mistake and a life may be lost.
I also feel like this country is so damn scared to have tough conversations. Why is there a massive group of people who feel like they are being killed, targeted and abused by police? Does some officers' bias have an impact on how they do their job (as Hillary said/asked)? If so, how do we fix that? It is so fucking condescending to police for people like Trump and the FOP to say police never fuck up or make mistakes. These things happen and the consequences are massive. Are the vast majority of police great people doing a public service for the right reasons? Of fucking course. Are there issues? It sure as hell seems that way. Let's have that conversation rather than hiding. No one willing to have the conversation is accusing the police of going out and hunting black folks.Post edited by Cliffy6745 on0 -
Actually I wasn't taught to blindly respect authority. As a white person, I internalized the message that police are there to protect me.muskydan said:
Ya, well you were probably told to respect your elders and if you are in a situation with the Police FOLLOW their Commands and don't behave like a shithead...there is No Fucking way a Black Panther will tell their Children the Second part and only the first part if the flavor is right.Go Beavers said:
Yes, shot for reaching into their pocket to get their ID, etc. It sounds like you don't have a lot of awareness of how other groups have experienced police. There's several memoirs that are a good read. And yes, many black parents have to repeatedly practice with their kids what to say and how to react to police. It's pretty sad. Not sure about you, but as a white kid, I didn't have to do this.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
You're going to get another geezuz right now.Go Beavers said:
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Mace...rgambs said:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/06/13/florida-cop-allows-dog-maul-man-riding-bicycle-no-lights/&ved=0ahUKEwiYtoa02cjPAhXq1IMKHfwoDasQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqwWQn_pW2Sxq_buJFINuFjb6zbQ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063996/Horrific-moment-police-dog-savages-man-s-face-puts-hands-surrender-captured-cop-s-body-camera.html
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights.
I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.0 -
Now take your situation where the cops are asking you questions and you're black. How that plays out, what the interation looks like, has a greater chance of general ugliness from the cops. Even if you conducted yourself in the same manner.mace1229 said:
No one has said give the cops the right to perform executions. No where. Maybe there are previous discussions I am unaware of that I don't agree with, but this comment seems reasonable.
I do know some complaints are a result of questioning. But come on, if the cops get a call about a burglary, and they see someone on the street that matches the description they should question him. Question him doesn't mean arrest him and beat him up, but ask him where's he's coming from, where he's going to, what his name is and so on. Completely reasonable and within the law to question him.
Actually happened to me about a month ago. Was working in my front yard, police got a call for something down the street and they came and questioned me. I showed them my ID that proved I lived there, they asked me where I worked and a couple other questions and went on their way. Really wasn't a big deal at all. How differently would that have turned out if I refused to cooperate? I would only be making it more difficult for everyone.
Examples of "well this person complied and was shot, so now they fear the same." Do you realize how extremely rare that is? Essentially every case that happens makes the news, out of millions and millions of stops and arrests it happens just a few times a year. More police get killed that innocent people following police orders. So yes it does happen, about one out of every million stops it does happen. But all cops are now labeled as racist pigs as a result.0 -
Go figureGo Beavers said:
Actually I wasn't taught to blindly respect authority. As a white person, I internalized the message that police are there to protect me.muskydan said:
Ya, well you were probably told to respect your elders and if you are in a situation with the Police FOLLOW their Commands and don't behave like a shithead...there is No Fucking way a Black Panther will tell their Children the Second part and only the first part if the flavor is right.Go Beavers said:
Yes, shot for reaching into their pocket to get their ID, etc. It sounds like you don't have a lot of awareness of how other groups have experienced police. There's several memoirs that are a good read. And yes, many black parents have to repeatedly practice with their kids what to say and how to react to police. It's pretty sad. Not sure about you, but as a white kid, I didn't have to do this.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
You're going to get another geezuz right now.Go Beavers said:
And some people resist because they're terrified they'll be killed. Because they knew people who were shot when they weren't doing anything, but the cops thought they might. So instead of the patronizing 'do what the cops tell you' talk, maybe consider what the other person's experience has been with police their whole life.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Mace...rgambs said:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/06/13/florida-cop-allows-dog-maul-man-riding-bicycle-no-lights/&ved=0ahUKEwiYtoa02cjPAhXq1IMKHfwoDasQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqwWQn_pW2Sxq_buJFINuFjb6zbQ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063996/Horrific-moment-police-dog-savages-man-s-face-puts-hands-surrender-captured-cop-s-body-camera.html
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights.
I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
People shot not even doing anything because the cops thought they might?
And how about the cop's perspective? Do you think they don't have personal experience with these things gone badly for officers that makes them guarded?
If you don't know to listen to the police when you encounter them... you haven't been taught very well. Mind you... with the recent movements... it's little wonder why people are a little more brazen at the point of contact.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help