Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Derec]

Summary executions on suspicion are not justified.

True. If a suspect is apprehended and then deliberately killed, that is murder.
But we are not talking about this with police shootings. We are talking about fluid situations where the suspect is not apprehended and presents a real or perceived threat to officers or third parties.

Killing someone is almost always massively disproportionate, as a response to pretty much anything.

Bullshit! Vast majority of police shootings are justified and most involve suspects armed with firearms.

 

[Derec]

that’s not really the takeaway I get from this thread. I’m sure everyone here is appalled by this behavior, which is probably more insidious than shootings. But, so much focus has been on shootings and so much defense of shootings by members here that those have dominated the conversation.

Because those other crimes are clear cut. Police shootings are controversial. Some people defend the dead perp even if he was armed and shot at somebody else seconds before being shot by police.

 

[Toni]

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

I have repeatedly said the police have a big problem with such things. It's just everyone wants to focus on shootings rather than the real issues.

In what world would shooting unarmed civilians not be a real issue?

Please address the point rather than derailing.

Are you not aware that the "unarmed" category includes simulated weapons? There are very few where the person who was shot was truly unarmed and not trying to grab the cop's gun.

Please quit evading the point. Police officers are trained professionals who have a much higher rate of killing unarmed persons—not just suspects—compared to the rate at which police officers are killed while on duty. In fact, almost all police officer deaths while on duty are from non-gun related reasons, with heart attack being among the most common.

In most of the western world, police officers on patrol do not carry firearms.

 

[Derec]

If the Second Amendment is to be anything other than a sick joke, then the possession of a fully working and loaded firearm by itself should not be an accepted excuse for any police officer to open fire.

It's not mere possession.
Do you think police should shoot somebody raising a gun to them or somebody else?
What about trying to stab someone?

 

[Toni]

Summary executions on suspicion are not justified.

True. If a suspect is apprehended and then deliberately killed, that is murder.
But we are not talking about this with police shootings. We are talking about fluid situations where the suspect is not apprehended and presents a real or perceived threat to officers or third parties.

Killing someone is almost always massively disproportionate, as a response to pretty much anything.

Bullshit! Vast majority of police shootings are justified and most involve suspects armed with firearms.

It is possible to justify almost anything as I’ve read posters here defending officers who killed a woman sleeping in her own apartment ….because at one time in the past, she had dated a guy who was not a great person. Haven’t we all?

So get off of it: police should face a great deal of scrutiny any time they discharge their weapon outside of the firing range. We need to quit twisting ourselves and all law and reason in order to excise the deaths of unarmed individuals —and even armed ones. After all, police often claim to have ‘seen something’ like a gun which has turned out to be a cell phone or similarly innocuous objects.

 

[Derec]

Please quit evading the point. Police officers are trained professionals who have a much higher rate of killing unarmed persons—not just suspects—compared to the rate at which police officers are killed while on duty.

"Unarmed" does not necessarily mean that the perp was not a threat justifying deadly force. A perp attacking a police officer can arm himself and use it against the officer.
That has happened numerous times before. Just one example:
Bodycam shows struggle after suspect grabs NYPD officer’s gun and shoots 2 cops
Nevertheless, a very small fraction of police shootings involve unarmed suspects. Most have been armed with firearms, and most others have been armed with other weapons such as knives (e.g. Ma'Khia Bryant) or realistic replicas. See my chart upthread.

In fact, almost all police officer deaths while on duty are from non-gun related reasons, with heart attack being among the most common.

That does not mean they should not react to a threat by a perp, be it an armed perp or an unarmed one attacking them.

In most of the western world, police officers on patrol do not carry firearms.

Factually wrong. There are a only a few countries where this applies, and many of them are tiny island nations.

 

[Derec]

It is possible to justify almost anything as I’ve read posters here defending officers who killed a woman sleeping in her own apartment …

You mean Breanna Taylor? That shooting was justified because police came under fire from the apartment and were returning fire. The officers who defended themselves did not do wrong - the person or persons lying in order to obtain the warrant is/are the guilty one(s).

.because at one time in the past, she had dated a guy who was not a great person.

That was an explanation why police were seeking a search warrant at her apartment, not a justification for the shooting.

Haven’t we all?

No.

So get off of it: police should face a great deal of scrutiny any time they discharge their weapon outside of the firing range.

They already do. That does not mean that in almost all cases, the weapon use is justified.

We need to quit twisting ourselves and all law and reason in order to excise the deaths of unarmed individuals —and even armed ones. After all, police often claim to have ‘seen something’ like a gun which has turned out to be a cell phone or similarly innocuous objects.

It is your side that is "twisting" themselves to blame police for cases where perps attack police officers or present weapons. Or attack police officers even if unarmed.
Even in cases where an object is mistaken for a gun often it is understandable due to visibility or the suspect running. Mistakes happen.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I know that you want to ban use of guns for self and home defense, but there are many cases of guns used for that purpose in the real world.

I’m not for an all out ban but it seems pro-gun types are against even reasonable gun regulation. One can still have guns for self and home defense while implementing gun control policies that can make us all safer.

It’s always presented as an all or nothing argument.

The thing is it's far easier to disarm the law abiding than to disarm the criminals. Realistically, there's little middle ground. Most calls for "reasonable" gun regulation are either useless or not actually about "reasonable".

But there are reasonable gun regulations that could be put in place that the gun lobbies are fighting.

Look at the very recent attempt by Congress to ban bump stocks. If we can’t even do the reasonable things then what hope is there?

 

[Toni]

It is possible to justify almost anything as I’ve read posters here defending officers who killed a woman sleeping in her own apartment …

You mean Breanna Taylor? That shooting was justified because police came under fire from the apartment and were returning fire. The officers who defended themselves did not do wrong - the person or persons lying in order to obtain the warrant is/are the guilty one(s).

.because at one time in the past, she had dated a guy who was not a great person.

That was an explanation why police were seeking a search warrant at her apartment, not a justification for the shooting.

Haven’t we all?

No.

So get off of it: police should face a great deal of scrutiny any time they discharge their weapon outside of the firing range.

They already do. That does not mean that in almost all cases, the weapon use is justified.

We need to quit twisting ourselves and all law and reason in order to excise the deaths of unarmed individuals —and even armed ones. After all, police often claim to have ‘seen something’ like a gun which has turned out to be a cell phone or similarly innocuous objects.

It is your side that is "twisting" themselves to blame police for cases where perps attack police officers or present weapons. Or attack police officers even if unarmed.
Even in cases where an object is mistaken for a gun often it is understandable due to visibility or the suspect running. Mistakes happen.

No one attacked police officers when Breonna Taylor was murdered in her own bed. POLICE sought and obtained a knockless warrant —for the wrong place—and did not identify themselves as police but were fired upon by someone who, correctly, believed their lives were in danger from armed intruders. Expectingbarmed police officers at intoned door makes sense only if one is a criminal, which Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend were NOT. They had no more reason to expect police at their door than you or I do.

If police really are justified in obtaining a no knock warrant, then they had damn well be sure that they are at the right place. Police have shot sleeping babies at the wrong house! This is morally as bad, if not worse than a drive by shooting that accidentally kills a child in their bed. I say maybe worse but I mean definitely worse because police are supposed be training Ned professionals who are acting on our behalf-/state sanctioned. They bear a high degree of responsibility, not a lesser standard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that "unarmed" gives a false picture--someone who is trying to take the cop's weapon(s) is "unarmed" but still justified.

 

[laughing dog]

Does BLM making noise give an officer a pass for almost killing a person over something as trivial as an acorn falling from a tree?

Or murdering an innocent women and only serving three years.
Former Minneapolis Police officer Mohamed Noor released from custody after over 3 years behind bars
This case did not result in much outrage. I wonder why ...

Mr Noor was quickly arrested and prosecuted. Mr Noor’s conviction on one charge was overturned on a legal technicality as the link in post indicates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

possession of a replica by itself should not be an accepted excuse for any police officer to open fire.

If the Second Amendment is to be anything other than a sick joke, then the possession of a fully working and loaded firearm by itself should not be an accepted excuse for any police officer to open fire.

And nobody is saying simply possessing a weapon is justification to shoot.

As with so many anti-gun people you are failing to realize the huge gap between a legally-possessed weapon and a brandished weapon. Possession is typically legal. Brandishing is a felony. In most situations where a gun is pointed at somebody somebody should be going to jail. Either the person being pointed at, and if they didn't do anything jail-worthy then most likely the person doing the pointing should be in jail. And in most situations where neither should be in jail it's a lack of identification and there's a third party that should be. (For example, the police clearing an active crime scene. There very well might be innocents caught up in it and they're liable to get a gun pointed at them until their status is determined.)

 

[bilby]

As with so many anti-gun people you are failing to realize the huge gap between a legally-possessed weapon and a brandished weapon. Possession is typically legal. Brandishing is a felony. In most situations where a gun is pointed at somebody somebody should be going to jail. Either the person being pointed at, and if they didn't do anything jail-worthy then most likely the person doing the pointing should be in jail. And in most situations where neither should be in jail it's a lack of identification and there's a third party that should be. (For example, the police clearing an active crime scene. There very well might be innocents caught up in it and they're liable to get a gun pointed at them until their status is determined.)

It's like talking to a Martian. Or to a comic book character from a weird alternative universe. We have such a fundamental disconnect between our basic expectations, that your high level commentary is incomprehensible to me.

Judge Dredd, by the way, is SATIRE. It's intended to magnify the absurdities of US "law enforcement", so that these become more obvious to the currently oblivious, and so that people can have conversations about how to reduce those absurdities in the real world. It is NOT a "how to" guide.

Oh, and (to repeat myself YET AGAIN), I am NOT NOW, nor have I EVER BEEN an "anti-gun person". I have owned, repaired, and manufactured guns. I have used guns for target shooting, hunting, and historical reenactments and displays. I have in the past at various times held a UK shotgun certificate, a gunpowder licence, a firearms licence, and a firearms dealers licence.

I have no problem with privately owned guns. I have no problem with properly trained police officers and military personnel having access to firearms.

I have a major problem with the popular fiction that guns can be used defensively; And with the routine issuing of firearms (along with effective impunity for their misuse) to poorly trained police officers.

And I have an even bigger problem with the casual attitude towards gun ownership that is endemic in the USA. Nobody who isn't well trained, and who doesn't understand and consistently employ a high level of security and safety, should be permitted to handle firearms.

If you are not abjectly horrified by the very idea of keeping a firearm in a drawer, or unsecured on a table, or anywhere in your home other than a properly constructed gun safe, then you are unfit to handle firearms.

 

[Gospel]

I want to make it clear that I'm not a defense lawyer for Black Lives Matter. When I post arguments, I expect replies to address my points directly, not deflections like "but Black Lives Matter." I will not respond to that bullshit diversion anymore.

 

[marc]

possession of a replica by itself should not be an accepted excuse for any police officer to open fire.

If the Second Amendment is to be anything other than a sick joke, then the possession of a fully working and loaded firearm by itself should not be an accepted excuse for any police officer to open fire.

And nobody is saying simply possessing a weapon is justification to shoot.

But that is the end result of your positions. Whenever an unarmed person is shot, you are fine with it because the person could have been armed, the phone in their hand could have been a gun, or they could have tried to take the gun away from the cop, so the cop was justified to shoot before figuring out if the victim was even actually armed. So if a cop is justified in shooting someone he even thinks is armed, then how is he not justified in shooting someone who actually does carry a gun?

As with so many anti-gun people you are failing to realize the huge gap between a legally-possessed weapon and a brandished weapon.

A complete misdirection. In all the shootings of unarmed people, which you say are justified, they didn't have a weapon to brandish. And in ones that the person was armed, when there is video evidence we often see the victim was not brandishing a weapon. With no video evidence we just have the cop's say so, which has so often been shown to not be credible.

 

[Gospel]

Does BLM making noise give an officer a pass for almost killing a person over something as trivial as an acorn falling from a tree?

Or murdering an innocent women and only serving three years.
Former Minneapolis Police officer Mohamed Noor released from custody after over 3 years behind bars
This case did not result in much outrage. I wonder why ...

Thanks for shifting the focus away from my point about trivial incidents leading to police misconduct and using it as an opportunity to push your ulterior motive about inconsistencies in public reactions to different cases of police misconduct, which has nothing to do with what I said. Why is it so difficult for you to simply say, "Hey Gospel, you're right about that," and then make a separate post to drone on about inconsistencies?

 

[Shadowy Man]

And note that "unarmed" gives a false picture--someone who is trying to take the cop's weapon(s) is "unarmed" but still justified.

What fraction of police shootings fall into that category? And I’m assuming we are only counting those that are independently verifiable, not ones when there is only the cop’s word that the “perp was reaching for the cop’s gun”.

 

[Derec]

No one attacked police officers when Breonna Taylor was murdered in her own bed.

What are you talking about? Her boyfriend was shooting at the police.

POLICE sought and obtained a knockless warrant —for the wrong place

I think it was right place, wrong time. The target used to live in the apartment, but no longer.

—and did not identify themselves as police but were fired upon by someone who, correctly, believed their lives were in danger from armed intruders.

Incorrectly believed, you mean? Had he not opened fire, the residence would have been searched, but police would not have shot BT.

Expectingbarmed police officers at intoned door makes sense only if one is a criminal, which Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend were NOT. They had no more reason to expect police at their door than you or I do.

At the same time, put yourself in the shoes of the rank and file police. They had a warrant. They legally executed the warrant. An occupant of the dwelling opened fire on them. What would Patrolman Toni do in that situation?

If police really are justified in obtaining a no knock warrant, then they had damn well be sure that they are at the right place.

They were at the place specified in the warrant. As far as I recall, her ex was the target and he used to live there. The detectives who lied to trhe judge in obtaining the warrant are in the wrong here, not the officers executing it. I think the prosecution (and persecution) of Hankison by Merrick Garland is a political witch hun - one already ended in a mistrial.

Police have shot sleeping babies at the wrong house!

Do you have a particular case in mind?

This is morally as bad, if not worse than a drive by shooting that accidentally kills a child in their bed.

Why? The drive by shooting was a crime from the beginning, usually attempted murder, which is why killing an innocent bystander in the process is first degree murder (see the hero of the movement Myon Burrell who murdered an 11 year old girl while shooting at a rival gang member). Very different than serving a warrant. BT case was complicated by the fact that some detectives lied to obtain a warrant, and they were rightly prosecuted for that, but most such cases do not have that complication. Remember Amir Locke? He pulled a gun on police serving a legal warrant looking for his cousin, who was sought for murder. Did not end well for him.

The BT case by the way reminds me of the case of Alteria Woods.
Jury acquits Gifford man who claimed self-defense after girlfriend killed by sheriff's SWAT team in 2017 raid

Police was executing a warrant. Andrew Coffee IV (a career criminal and scion of a criminal family) was sleeping and claims he did not hear that it was police, even though the raid had been going on for some time by the time he opened fire at police. Police returned fire, and his girlfriend, in bed next to him, was fatally hit. Unfortuntately AC4 was acquitted of murder and attempted murder, but at ;least he got 10 years for possession of a gun by a convicted felon.

Alteria Woods did not deserve what happened to her, but it was stupid of her to sleep with a violent felon. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas ...

I say maybe worse but I mean definitely worse because police are supposed be training Ned professionals who are acting on our behalf-/state sanctioned. They bear a high degree of responsibility, not a lesser standard.

They are also doing their jobs executing warrants often against dangerous people. Sometimes innocent people get harmed. Police should try to minimize mistakes, but in a kinetic situation you cannot predict everything. Especially when somebody opens fire on them.
That is very different than some banger shooting at other bangers (like Myon Burrell) and killing innocent kids or someone like Dreasjon Reed (another hero of the movement) shooting randomly at houses.

 

[Toni]

No one attacked police officers when Breonna Taylor was murdered in her own bed.

What are you talking about? Her boyfriend was shooting at the police.

POLICE sought and obtained a knockless warrant —for the wrong place

I think it was right place, wrong time. The target used to live in the apartment, but no longer.

—and did not identify themselves as police but were fired upon by someone who, correctly, believed their lives were in danger from armed intruders.

Incorrectly believed, you mean? Had he not opened fire, the residence would have been searched, but police would not have shot BT.

Expectingbarmed police officers at intoned door makes sense only if one is a criminal, which Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend were NOT. They had no more reason to expect police at their door than you or I do.

At the same time, put yourself in the shoes of the rank and file police. They had a warrant. They legally executed the warrant. An occupant of the dwelling opened fire on them. What would Patrolman Toni do in that situation?

If police really are justified in obtaining a no knock warrant, then they had damn well be sure that they are at the right place.

They were at the place specified in the warrant. As far as I recall, her ex was the target and he used to live there. The detectives who lied to trhe judge in obtaining the warrant are in the wrong here, not the officers executing it. I think the prosecution (and persecution) of Hankison by Merrick Garland is a political witch hun - one already ended in a mistrial.

Police have shot sleeping babies at the wrong house!

Do you have a particular case in mind?

This is morally as bad, if not worse than a drive by shooting that accidentally kills a child in their bed.

Why? The drive by shooting was a crime from the beginning, usually attempted murder, which is why killing an innocent bystander in the process is first degree murder (see the hero of the movement Myon Burrell who murdered an 11 year old girl while shooting at a rival gang member). Very different than serving a warrant. BT case was complicated by the fact that some detectives lied to obtain a warrant, and they were rightly prosecuted for that, but most such cases do not have that complication. Remember Amir Locke? He pulled a gun on police serving a legal warrant looking for his cousin, who was sought for murder. Did not end well for him.

The BT case by the way reminds me of the case of Alteria Woods.
Jury acquits Gifford man who claimed self-defense after girlfriend killed by sheriff's SWAT team in 2017 raid

Police was executing a warrant. Andrew Coffee IV (a career criminal and scion of a criminal family) was sleeping and claims he did not hear that it was police, even though the raid had been going on for some time by the time he opened fire at police. Police returned fire, and his girlfriend, in bed next to him, was fatally hit. Unfortuntately AC4 was acquitted of murder and attempted murder, but at ;least he got 10 years for possession of a gun by a convicted felon.

Alteria Woods did not deserve what happened to her, but it was stupid of her to sleep with a violent felon. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas ...

I say maybe worse but I mean definitely worse because police are supposed be training Ned professionals who are acting on our behalf-/state sanctioned. They bear a high degree of responsibility, not a lesser standard.

They are also doing their jobs executing warrants often against dangerous people. Sometimes innocent people get harmed. Police should try to minimize mistakes, but in a kinetic situation you cannot predict everything. Especially when somebody opens fire on them.
That is very different than some banger shooting at other bangers (like Myon Burrell) and killing innocent kids or someone like Dreasjon Reed (another hero of the movement) shooting randomly at houses.

The boyfriend shot at unidentified tired intruders into his home. What would 2nd Amendment loving Americans have had him do? Isn’t that why all of these gun nuts believe we need to be armed to the teeth? To defend our loved ones/women against armed intruders?

The police SOUGHT a no-knock warrant and obtained one in their search for someone who had not lived at that address for some time AND WAS ACTUALLY IN CUSTODY when the warrant was executed.

Think about it: it could just as easily have been someone who had just moved into the apartment that he and Breonna used to live in and who had zero knowledge of the ex who was already in police custody. I don’t know if you rent or own or if it’s a single family dwelling or an apartment but I will bet that at some time you lived in an apartment t. Should your life be endangered by a no-knock warrant on a firmer tenant who happened to have lived at your address at one time? Of course not.

The current boyfriend was ‘standing his ground’ as white people are allowed to do in many states in the US and in fact, fired a. warning shot into the floor ( not a good idea but also not the point).

The police fucked up very very badly and an innocent woman died because of their carelessness and incompetence.

 

[Rhea]

Aint no body from BLM on this thread.

There are many who support and sympathize with that toxic movement.

Are you suggesting that because BLM raised concerns over what you consider to be nothing, we should overlook instances of police misconduct, such as the case where officers shot through a window and killed the individual they were sent to perform a wellness check on?

No. Police misconduct should be investigated, and if appropriate charged. But #BLM gets outraged over justified police shootings as well - Michael Brown for example.
And people on here have justified #BLM tactics like blocking highways, bridges and rail stations, and have downplayed even instances of arson and looting as mere "property damage".

It sounds like you are saying that any time any cop does anything objectionable, one should talk about BLM first. Or, instead. It sounds like you’re saying, “you brought up police misconduct in a police misconduct thread. OF COURSE we should talk about BLM! NO topic is more important!”