Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Derec]

Many victims of police shootings are as innocent as you; And did nothing wrong that you wouldn't have done in the same circumstances.

Define many. Vast majority of police shootings are justified, and even the unjustified ones have victims that have been guilty of something, which led police to them in the first place.

 

[Gospel]

Even if the use of deadly force was not justified, it shows why it's a stupid idea to run from police. It increases the odds of an adverse outcome, be it getting shot, tased, or tackled.

Understanding the consequences of running doesn't negate the need for accountability and ensuring that law enforcement's response is proportionate and just.

 

[Derec]

Understanding the consequences of running doesn't negate the need for accountability and ensuring that law enforcement's response is proportionate and just.

I agree. The actions of the officer should be impartially investigated.

But I will reiterate what I wrote years ago about another case, years ago. If you do stupid things like run form the police, you increase your chances of things going south. If a cop shoots you dead, you are dead, whether or not the cop goes to prison or not. So just don't run. Easy.

One of the posters here even made this part of his sig line. I do not think he got my point at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

This person certainly shouldn't have been shot, but innocents don't run from felony stops.

Apparently people did not read the entire report on this incident.

At the church, officers pulled up in two vehicles and turned on bright, forward-facing “take-down” lights that the lawsuit states “illuminate the area in front of the car and are blinding to anyone looking at the lights.”

As the officers were getting out of their vehicles, the lawsuit states, Clark and another man in the gray car ran. Both were Black.

The runners did not know they were cops when they started running.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By far the majority of police shootings involve clearly threatening behavior from the person who gets shot and most of the rest are excessive force in reaction to actual wrongs, or people trying to ditch contraband--human reaction time is simply not fast enough to evaluate the item the person pulled out before the person could use it to shoot the cop if they intended to do so. This person certainly shouldn't have been shot, but innocents don't run from felony stops.

So, if the cop's reaction time is too slow, shouldn't also be the alleged criminal's, and therefore there is time to see if it is a gun before deciding to react with unreasonable force. It appears also that you are an expert on the behaviour of innocent people. Maybe, innocent people don't shoot other innocent people.

What I'm saying is that you're after an unreasonable standard.

No human can distinguish ditching contraband from drawing to shoot fast enough to defend themselves. The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

But what if you don’t know if they’re “bad” yet? Yes, I think the police must accept that they could get shot at before they risk killing innocent people. You don’t. So that’s why in your view the killing of innocents is an unfortunate, but ultimately acceptable, consequence of police actions.

 

[laughing dog]

Many victims of police shootings are as innocent as you; And did nothing wrong that you wouldn't have done in the same circumstances.

Define many. Vast majority of police shootings are justified, and even the unjustified ones have victims that have been guilty of something, which led police to them in the first place.

Whether or not they have been allegedly guilty of something is irrelevant to the issue of shooting and killing unarmed suspects.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many victims of police shootings are as innocent as you; And did nothing wrong that you wouldn't have done in the same circumstances.

Define many. Vast majority of police shootings are justified, and even the unjustified ones have victims that have been guilty of something, which led police to them in the first place.

Most of the time.

There was that case where IIRC someone was trying to get the officer's attention and he shot her. Absolutely no wrongdoing, just reacting to a startle with bullets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This person certainly shouldn't have been shot, but innocents don't run from felony stops.

Apparently people did not read the entire report on this incident.

At the church, officers pulled up in two vehicles and turned on bright, forward-facing “take-down” lights that the lawsuit states “illuminate the area in front of the car and are blinding to anyone looking at the lights.”

As the officers were getting out of their vehicles, the lawsuit states, Clark and another man in the gray car ran. Both were Black.

The runners did not know they were cops when they started running.

Big load of lights suddenly spring up? What else would it be but cops?

And even if it wasn't the cops that clearly means they have the drop on you. Right or wrong, you don't take action.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

But what if you don’t know if they’re “bad” yet? Yes, I think the police must accept that they could get shot at before they risk killing innocent people. You don’t. So that’s why in your view the killing of innocents is an unfortunate, but ultimately acceptable, consequence of police actions.

Don't do stupid things when someone's pointing a gun at you. Almost all cases where the person didn't actually pose a threat are an example of doing something very stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

But what if you don’t know if they’re “bad” yet? Yes, I think the police must accept that they could get shot at before they risk killing innocent people. You don’t. So that’s why in your view the killing of innocents is an unfortunate, but ultimately acceptable, consequence of police actions.

Don't do stupid things when someone's pointing a gun at you. Almost all cases where the person didn't actually pose a threat are an example of doing something very stupid.

Another instance of an irrelevant excuse for shooting sn unarmed suspect.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

By far the majority of police shootings involve clearly threatening behavior from the person who gets shot and most of the rest are excessive force in reaction to actual wrongs, or people trying to ditch contraband--human reaction time is simply not fast enough to evaluate the item the person pulled out before the person could use it to shoot the cop if they intended to do so. This person certainly shouldn't have been shot, but innocents don't run from felony stops.

So, if the cop's reaction time is too slow, shouldn't also be the alleged criminal's, and therefore there is time to see if it is a gun before deciding to react with unreasonable force. It appears also that you are an expert on the behaviour of innocent people. Maybe, innocent people don't shoot other innocent people.

What I'm saying is that you're after an unreasonable standard.

No human can distinguish ditching contraband from drawing to shoot fast enough to defend themselves. The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

Someone aiming a gun looks different to someone simply holding something. Even if it is a gun, as the cop already has their gun aimed, they can shoot faster than the opponent who has to aim their gun.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

But what if you don’t know if they’re “bad” yet? Yes, I think the police must accept that they could get shot at before they risk killing innocent people. You don’t. So that’s why in your view the killing of innocents is an unfortunate, but ultimately acceptable, consequence of police actions.

Don't do stupid things when someone's pointing a gun at you. Almost all cases where the person didn't actually pose a threat are an example of doing something very stupid.

You’re putting the cart in front of the horse. Much of those are stupid simply because cops are so on edge and willing to shoot at the mildest hint of threat, real or not.

Being stupid shouldn’t be a capital offense.

 

[ZiprHead]

This person certainly shouldn't have been shot, but innocents don't run from felony stops.

Apparently people did not read the entire report on this incident.

At the church, officers pulled up in two vehicles and turned on bright, forward-facing “take-down” lights that the lawsuit states “illuminate the area in front of the car and are blinding to anyone looking at the lights.”

As the officers were getting out of their vehicles, the lawsuit states, Clark and another man in the gray car ran. Both were Black.

The runners did not know they were cops when they started running.

Big load of lights suddenly spring up? What else would it be but cops?

And even if it wasn't the cops that clearly means they have the drop on you. Right or wrong, you don't take action.

Your lack of imagination is not an excuse.

 

[bilby]

The only actual scenarios are either you shoot because they are grabbing something or you decree that police must simply accept the bad guy shooting them.

So much wrong with this.

False Dichotomy - there are more than two possible scenarios. Lots of people reach for something (maybe a weapon; maybe contraband; Maybe ID; or a maybe a handkerchief to mop their brow, or any number of other things), but DON'T get shot, and DON'T shoot the cop. So there are clearly more than two possibilities. The reason you don't consider them is:

Question Begging - there is no "the bad guy", until you identify BOTH that what he is reaching for is a weapon, AND that he intends to use it against the cop. Until that point, "bad guy" is not only a mere assumption, but is an assumption that the law explicitly says law enforcers may not make in a free society - citizens are entitled to a presumption of innocence, until their guilt is established with certainty. Of course, that entails risk, but you can't accept that because you routinely advocate for:

Police Cowardice - The police MUST simply accept that their job entails a risk of violence, and that they may not and must not preemptively defend themselves against threats that are merely possible. If a police officer cannot tolerate significant personal risk, he is in the wrong job. Your incredulity at the very idea that a cop must "simply accept" the realities of working in law enforcement is frankly bizzare.

That's a hell of a lot of wrong you managed to pack into a single 26 word sentence. I am almost impressed. It's difficult to be that wrong, that succinctly.

 

[bilby]

Don't do stupid things when someone's pointing a gun at you.

Does this rule also apply to cops?

What about to cops who only think that someone might be about to point a gun at them?

 

[robnisch]

Seems like someone here watches a lot of action movies!

 

[Gospel]

Many victims of police shootings are as innocent as you; And did nothing wrong that you wouldn't have done in the same circumstances.

Define many. Vast majority of police shootings are justified, and even the unjustified ones have victims that have been guilty of something, which led police to them in the first place.

Most of the time.

There was that case where IIRC someone was trying to get the officer's attention and he shot her. Absolutely no wrongdoing, just reacting to a startle with bullets.

And then there was that time when officers responding to a wellness check shot through the window and killed the person they were sent to check on.

Edit: But the excuse was, well they feared for their lives. Again.

 

[southernhybrid]

I challenge you to read the the entire article I'm about to share from WaPo. It's not about police shooting an unarmed person. It's about a large number of police from many different parts of the country, raping, molesting and sexually abusing in other ways, children and teens. I might add some more article later about this problem but apparently there are way too many police who are criminals and many of them are never charged or get very light sentences, when prosecuted.

https://wapo.st/3Xhtg9R

They served in police departments big and small. They were new recruits and seasoned veterans, patrol officers and chiefs of police. They understood the power of their guns and badges. In many cases, they used that very power to find and silence their victims.

A Washington Post investigation has found that over the past two decades, hundreds of law enforcement officers in the United States have sexually abused children while officials at every level of the criminal justice system have failed to protect kids, punish abusers and prevent additional crimes.

Police and sheriff’s departments have enabled predators by botching background checks, ignoring red flags and mishandling investigations. Accused cops have used their knowledge of the legal system to stall cases, get charges lowered or evade convictions. Prosecutors have given generous plea deals to officers who admitted to raping and groping minors. Judges have allowed many convicted officers to avoid prison time.

All the while, children in every state and the District of Columbia have continued to be targeted, groomed and violated by officers sworn to keep them safe.

 

[TV and credit cards]

US finds Phoenix Police Dept violates civil rights of city residents

In one example, police created a so-called "challenge coin" that depicted the image of a protester whom an officer had shot in the groin.
The coin had a star over the image of the man's groin with the words: “Good night, left nut.”
On the back, the coin read, “Making America Great Again – One Nut at a Time.”

Trumpworld.