Police abuse

jeffbr said:

oftenreading said:

I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.

If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.

Totally agree with you, Often. When my kids were younger I told them that they should always be respectful and comply with orders from the police, but before any sort of conversation with them, and before consenting to anything (like a search), they needed to inform the officer that they would comply once their parents were notified. I didn't want them defying the police, but I didn't want them talking to them, either. I let them know that in situations like that, the police are absolutely not their friend, and that it is very easy to get caught up in something beyond your control by having something misinterpreted. Luckily we only had one instance where that was put to the test. My daughter was called by a friend who was at a party who needed a ride home. My daughter hadn't been partying, and was always willing to help out a friend who was, so she swung by to pick up her friend just as the cops came to bust the party. They stopped her and talked to her for a minute. She let them know why she was there, and said that if they wanted to talk to her further she or they would have to call me first. The cop grunted, told her to get her friend and get out of there. And she was safely on her way. It could have been just as likely that if she had talked to the cop she would have been swept up in something she didn't have anything to do with. I appreciate that cops have a tough job to do, and made sure to teach my kids respect, but I also didn't want to ever see them become a victim of any sort of police abuse of power. Search my car? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Enter my home? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Show respect and willingness to comply, but protect yourself and don't give any information beyond what is requested.

There's nothing wrong with teaching your kids that, and probably a good idea.
But there's a difference between teaching your children to request the presence of their parents first and claiming it was unjustified for police to question a child. Cops absolutely have the right to ask questions, just like you have the right to refuse to answer. 
And to the previous comment, there are false confessions, I recognize that. Maybe there aren't the best policies in practice, maybe they need to be improved. But calling it police abuse when they follow those policies is not a justified statement in my view. All that being said, I still think they only thing they should have dine differently was make sure the parents were aware of the situation. There was nothing in the article to indicate he was coerced into making a false statement. It appears they simply told him facts about the potential consequences, there have been high school teenagers who are on the sex offender list for very similar circumstances. I would not consider this abuse, they questioned him for a limited time and let him go. Many false confessions.

Here is how it unfolded:
A female students told school admin a boy had a video of a sexual encounter.
Police asked the boy for permission to view and delete any illegal material. He gave permission. 
It was a video (and not only audio as some suggested) but the video did not have any identifiable images but id have clear audio of a sexual encounter.
They informed the student what potential consequences there could have been and released him.

Where exactly did they go wrong? This is not some 16-hour interrogation that resulted in a false confession. They had a witness come forward, he gave consent (which they could have easily obtained a warrant if he didn't). Told him what was illegal and what could happen and released him. It doesn't appear they threatened to come after him the next day and throw the book at him.

If this was your daughter on the video, how would you prefer they handle the situation? Ignore it? I mean, the only thing less they could have done than asking permission to view and delete it and then release him  is to ignore it, what else could they have done that was less involved?

Seems to me that unless the sexual act actually happened on school property, then the school should have turned this to the police, whom should have had the boy and his parents at the police department for questioning.  Why did this occur at the school??  Make a scene at the school to embarrass the boy and confiscate his phone information without a warrant.  If I were his parents I would be outraged how this transpired.

CM189191 said:

Waiting to see how this turns out....

Crystal police shoot dozens of rounds at man in public park [VIDEO]

So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die.  Not hard to understand this one.  Ridiculous how many shots fired.  Pretty bad aim maybe.  Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate???  Geez.

PP193448 said:

CM189191 said:

Waiting to see how this turns out....

Crystal police shoot dozens of rounds at man in public park [VIDEO]

So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die.  Not hard to understand this one.  Ridiculous how many shots fired.  Pretty bad aim maybe.  Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate???  Geez.

No one is trained to shoot to injure, you always aim center mass.  
And I agree, way too many shots fired.  I'm thinking nerves and bad aim came into play.

CM189191 said:

PP193448 said:

CM189191 said:

Waiting to see how this turns out....

Crystal police shoot dozens of rounds at man in public park [VIDEO]

So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die.  Not hard to understand this one.  Ridiculous how many shots fired.  Pretty bad aim maybe.  Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate???  Geez.

Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers.  Funny how that works.

I wonder where the body cams are?  Probably malfunctioned....

Serious question for you then.
Which do you find more likely.
A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason  and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it.
B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.

I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

PP193448 said:

CM189191 said:

Waiting to see how this turns out....

Crystal police shoot dozens of rounds at man in public park [VIDEO]

So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die.  Not hard to understand this one.  Ridiculous how many shots fired.  Pretty bad aim maybe.  Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate???  Geez.

Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers.  Funny how that works.

I wonder where the body cams are?  Probably malfunctioned....

Serious question for you then.
Which do you find more likely.
A. Multiple cops were in on it together to murder some random guy for no reason  and help each other cover it up. All involved are completely fine with this and not one refuses to go along with it.
B. The dude really had a gun and really refused to put it down and the cops actually felt threatened.

I would say B sounds much more plausible. You wouldn't agree?

Right, those are the only 2 scenarios that could have possibly occurred

I'm sure the cops felt threatened,  they're terrible shots.  It sounded like 4 officers unloaded their clips and still didn't manage to kill him.  Also, black man with a gun and all.  It's a shame they were unable are not trained to deescalate the situation.  Shoot first ask questions later, I guess.

The problem is, there isn't much time to ask questions when someone is pointing a gun at you threatening to shoot.
I know I wouldn't wait to see what kind of day he is having. The time it takes to ask 1 question he can fire 10 shots.
What does color have to do with it? Black, white, green, purple, it doesnt matter. if you have a gun and are displaying it in a threatening manner police have the right to protect themsleves.
I know if someone who is armed breaks into my house, I am not going to try and have a conversation with him and see how he's feeling while he's pointing a gun at me if I have the option to use force myself. If I were in a situation where someone was pointing a gun at me and I had an option to eliminate that threat, I really don't care what he would have to say at that point.
Maybe we need better methods of prevention, better means to help the mentally ill so it never reaches that point. That I would agree with. But once it reaches that point, everyone has the right to protect themselves.