Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Angry Floof]

Wait... if an unarmed man is still a threat then why do we need to arm the police? If someone threatened a cop with a gun, then the cop can just attack the guy and take their gun. The cop is supposed to be better trained after all.

Exactly. If unarmed naked men running away are so dangerous, let's just send out cops naked and unarmed, and train them to run away from the bad guys.

 

[Derec]

I suggest you find out the hospital where he is treated and ask them. Or are you claiming the article is misinformed? Read the linked article.

I am saying that if he was shot in the abdomen he was facing the officer who shot him. It's not rocket science.

He was running AWAY from the police.

How was he then shot in the abdomen? Was he running backwards?

He was unarmed. He was naked. No weapon was found anywhere.

So you've already said. This shooting may or may not be justified. But him being unarmed does not prove that he was not a threat. It does not prove that he was not a threat.

But hey, some naked unarmed fleeing black man MUST have been a threat to some police officer. There really can be no other explanation.

I am sure that the officer shot because he perceived there to be threat, rightly or wrongly, and not just for the evulz.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am saying that if he was shot in the abdomen he was facing the officer who shot him. It's not rocket science.

How was he then shot in the abdomen? Was he running backwards?

He was unarmed. He was naked. No weapon was found anywhere.

So you've already said. This shooting may or may not be justified. But him being unarmed does not prove that he was not a threat. It does not prove that he was not a threat.

But hey, some naked unarmed fleeing black man MUST have been a threat to some police officer. There really can be no other explanation.

I am sure that the officer shot because he perceived there to be threat, rightly or wrongly, and not just for the evulz.

You are assuming a lot, namely, that everyone uniformly conforms to the way you use "abdomen" and define it separately from "back". It is, according to art anatomy, the region of the body from below the chest, where the ribcage starts to part, down to the top of the hips. I already expected this from "shot while running away in the abdomen".

If officer's shoot just because they perceived threat, rather than because of actual threat, isn't that assuming guilt of a capital crime before, well, anything?

I reject the unacceptable notion, the absurd notion, that the enforcers of the law do not need obey one of its most important (especially to you in every college rape thread ever) notions.

 

[Derec]

You are assuming a lot, namely, that everyone uniformly conforms to the way you use "abdomen" and define it separately from "back".

It is defined separately from the back.

It is, according to art anatomy, the region of the body from below the chest, where the ribcage starts to part, down to the top of the hips. I already expected this from "shot while running away in the abdomen".

First of all, there is a difference between "shot in the abdomen" (vs. "shot in the back") and "abdominal cavity".
Second of all, there is anatomically a distinction between thorax and abdomen ventrally (or anteriorly) and the back dorsally (or posteriorly).

Third, what do you mean with "ribcage starts to part"? The thorax is pretty much defined by the ribcage. The boundary between the two is the diaphragm which lies below the ribcage.

If officer's shoot just because they perceived threat, rather than because of actual threat, isn't that assuming guilt of a capital crime before, well, anything?

An officer (or even a civilian) does not have to assume guilt of some capital crime in order to use lethal force. And we all, including police officers, can only act based on our perceptions of a situations, and not based on hindsight. The question must be whether the action was reasonable at the time it was taken. And I think the verdict on that is still out.

I reject the unacceptable notion, the absurd notion, that the enforcers of the law do not need obey one of its most important (especially to you in every college rape thread ever) notions.

Enforcers of the law must obviously follow the laws. But it is truly absurd to expect police officers to be omniscient regarding the true level of threat coming from violent suspects.
I have seen anti-police people on here and elsewhere argue that if a perp uses a realistic replica and gets shot that the cop committed a crime because the perp only had a "toy". That is just stupid.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is defined separately from the back.

I scarcely believe I have to point this out to you (and I feel like I do this a couple times a year) language and communication don't work like that. Words in common use do not conform to dictionaries. Dictionaries and definitions such as these that you insist be gospel are just canvassses of how people use words and are not authoritative.

Cue tantrum over some not being able to demand that everyone use language exactly the way that one person wants. Fuck wasn't even in the dictionary until my own adult life. Guess fuck didn't exist as a word at all, then?

Good to know that everyone is lingustically omniscient and knows exactly what every word means, canonically, according specifically to Derec. Communication is no longer an issue on planet earth thanks to your (fucking idiotic!) Assertion!

First of all, there is a difference between "shot in the abdomen" (vs. "shot in the back") and "abdominal cavity".
Second of all, there is anatomically a distinction between thorax and abdomen ventrally (or anteriorly) and the back dorsally (or posteriorly).

ah, so you expect journalists to use and know precise medical jargon now! So very reasonable. So very rational.

Third, what do you mean with "ribcage starts to part"?

LOL! Read. The. Sentence. It is not a difficult description of a process. Hint: I may be stern insisting you get to the bottom of this... See if you can decipher THAT meaning.

If officer's shoot just because they perceived threat, rather than because of actual threat, isn't that assuming guilt of a capital crime before, well, anything?

An officer (or even a civilian) does not have to assume guilt of some capital crime in order to use lethal force.

Why shouldn't they?

And we all, including police officers, can only act based on our perceptions of a situations, and not based on hindsight.

which is why we should always error on the side that doesn't involve a unilateral and questionable outcome

The question must be whether the action was reasonable at the time it was taken. And I think the verdict on that is still out.

cops shot an unarmed naked man who was running, in the back. It's on fucking VIDEO! How can you still dispute this fact?

I reject the unacceptable notion, the absurd notion, that the enforcers of the law do not need obey one of its most important (especially to you in every college rape thread ever) notions.

Enforcers of the law must obviously follow the laws. But it is truly absurd to expect police officers to be omniscient regarding the true level of threat coming from violent suspects.

I expect not that officer's be omniscient but rather that officer's wait until after a crime involving an actual attack has actually been committed to engage in the use of force.

I have seen anti-police people on here and elsewhere argue that if a perp uses a realistic replica and gets shot that the cop committed a crime because the perp only had a "toy". That is just stupid.

That is not what we are discussing here, and the incidents in question, between the child and the guy in walmart, were both situations wherein due diligence was not followed. I don't care if it looks like a gun, I care whether or not it was fired unilaterally. If anyone fires a gun unilaterally, THEY are the wrong ones. Because having a weapon is not a crime.

 

[marc]

I have seen anti-police people on here and elsewhere argue that if a perp uses a realistic replica and gets shot that the cop committed a crime because the perp only had a "toy". That is just stupid.

That is not what we are discussing here, and the incidents in question, between the child and the guy in walmart, were both situations wherein due diligence was not followed. I don't care if it looks like a gun, I care whether or not it was fired unilaterally. If anyone fires a gun unilaterally, THEY are the wrong ones. Because having a weapon is not a crime.

Wait.... is he saying he is against the second amendment? Because it sure sounds like he is advocating police shoot people who they even think might have a gun. No checking if it is even an actual gun would mean not even bothering to see if it was a gun that is legally owned, did the person have a license to carry, etc. (in the case of the guy in walmart it was an open carry state) The NRA keeps saying we need guns to defend ourselves against government run amok, so they should be speaking out against all these police that kill people for just thinking they have a gun.

 

[ZiprHead]

First of all, there is a difference between "shot in the abdomen" (vs. "shot in the back") and "abdominal cavity".
Second of all, there is anatomically a distinction between thorax and abdomen ventrally (or anteriorly) and the back dorsally (or posteriorly).
View attachment 30572

So if the shot goes in either to the left or the right of the spinal cavity it hits the abdominal cavity.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have seen anti-police people on here and elsewhere argue that if a perp uses a realistic replica and gets shot that the cop committed a crime because the perp only had a "toy". That is just stupid.

That is not what we are discussing here, and the incidents in question, between the child and the guy in walmart, were both situations wherein due diligence was not followed. I don't care if it looks like a gun, I care whether or not it was fired unilaterally. If anyone fires a gun unilaterally, THEY are the wrong ones. Because having a weapon is not a crime.

Wait.... is he saying he is against the second amendment? Because it sure sounds like he is advocating police shoot people who they even think might have a gun. No checking if it is even an actual gun would mean not even bothering to see if it was a gun that is legally owned, did the person have a license to carry, etc. (in the case of the guy in walmart it was an open carry state) The NRA keeps saying we need guns to defend ourselves against government run amok, so they should be speaking out against all these police that kill people for just thinking they have a gun.

And somehow when a bunch of white people storm a government building with actual, real guns, magically they are able to resolve it without shooting anyone!

 

[Worldtraveller]

I have seen anti-police people on here and elsewhere argue that if a perp uses a realistic replica and gets shot that the cop committed a crime because the perp only had a "toy". That is just stupid.

That is not what we are discussing here, and the incidents in question, between the child and the guy in walmart, were both situations wherein due diligence was not followed. I don't care if it looks like a gun, I care whether or not it was fired unilaterally. If anyone fires a gun unilaterally, THEY are the wrong ones. Because having a weapon is not a crime.

Wait.... is he saying he is against the second amendment? Because it sure sounds like he is advocating police shoot people who they even think might have a gun. No checking if it is even an actual gun would mean not even bothering to see if it was a gun that is legally owned, did the person have a license to carry, etc. (in the case of the guy in walmart it was an open carry state) The NRA keeps saying we need guns to defend ourselves against government run amok, so they should be speaking out against all these police that kill people for just thinking they have a gun.

The bootlickers perceive it as affecting black/brown people, so they are ok with it in that context.

 

[southernhybrid]

This past Saturday, a police officer shot a fleeing unarmed naked man who was being chased by a police dog. The victim is hospitalized for gun shot wounds to the leg and abdomen, and dog bites. He was wanted for kidnapping, sexual assault and assault. No weapon was found. Today that officer was fired. (https://www.startribune.com/in-swift-decisive-and-serious-action-st-paul-police-chief-fires-officer-who-shot-wounded-man/573249531/?refresh=true)

Doesn't add up. If he was running away, how was he shot in the abdomen?

Also, just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. An unarmed person can physically attack an officer and take control of their gun. It has happened before. I hope the cop sues the department for their job back.

Did you bother to watch the video or read the linked article? The man was attacked by a police dog while he was already on the ground. So, how did that make him a threat? There were four officers surrounding him. I'm pretty sure that four armed police officers could control one unarmed naked man.

The man was being charged with a variety of crimes, but that's not the point. The point is that under our system, everyone is supposed to get their day in court. There was no justification for the actions of the police officer who shot this man.

 

[Jarhyn]

As was recently posed to me on Reddit:

[QUOTE="r/oneeightfiveone]"BuT wHaT if you NeeD thE coPs? WhAt If Ur gETtINg RoBed?"

I cannot think of a single situation where the addition of a context-less, armed, aggressive dude would fix it. And if I'm getting robbed, the cops are 20 minutes away, and the last thing I want is to get shot by accident after the thief is gone and the cops show up thinking it's me.[/QUOTE]

 

[laughing dog]

I am saying that if he was shot in the abdomen he was facing the officer who shot him. It's not rocket science.

How was he then shot in the abdomen? Was he running backwards?

Why would you assume the victim had to be running with his back to the officer? Running away means fleeing. If he is fleeing at a sufficient angle, some or much of his front would be visible to the officer. Moreover, the newspaper report says wounds to the abdomen. You don't know that is the medical report (assuming you have a clue on how a medical report would even read in this situation).

So you've already said. This shooting may or may not be justified. But him being unarmed does not prove that he was not a threat. It does not prove that he was not a threat.

He was unarmed and naked and fleeing away from the officer. That means he was not a threat, Moreover, the other officers did not open fire. In fact, if you had bothered to read the link, you'd know he was being attacked by a police dog when he was shot.

The St. Paul police chief had the video cam footage, the statements for the other officers and police procedure. He fired this officer. Since the St. Paul police are unionized, there is a grievance and arbitration procedure. If this officer is not reinstated via a grievance settlement or an arbitration award, then he has the option of civil remedies.

I am sure that the officer shot because he perceived there to be threat, rightly or wrongly, and not just for the evulz.

Now why would a trained police officer perceive a fleeing, unarmed naked man who is being attacked by a police dog as a threat?

Perhaps the real reason this officer was fired is because he did not shoot to kill - something many of the kneejerk defenders of the police claim police ought to do in self defense.

 

[Worldtraveller]

This quote seems to apply to police as well as conservatives in general:

Frank Wilhoit: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition ...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

 

[lpetrich]

Democrats should ditch ‘defund the police’ and give Ocasio-Cortez a bigger platform, Obama says. - The New York Times

During an appearance on Snapchat’s “Good Luck America” show, the former president called on progressives to ditch catchphrases like “defund the police” — while, moments later, chiding party elders for not spotlighting young stars like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

“If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it’s not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan, like ‘defund the police’,” Mr. Obama told the show’s host Peter Hamby in the episode, which was posted Monday.

“But, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done,” he added.

Presumably because "defund the police" seems too much like "get rid of the police".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "What if activists aren’t PR firms for politicians ...

What if activists aren’t PR firms for politicians & their demands are bc police budgets are exploding, community resources are shrinking to bankroll it, & ppl brought this up for ages but it wasn’t until they said “defund” that comfortable people started paying attn to brutality.

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore.

It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.

Seems like AOC has thought a lot about activism and protests. But making people uncomfortable is a risky strategy - it can turn people against the protesters.

 

[Angry Floof]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIrj_OJZrBk[/YOUTUBE]

Excerpt on the topic of Defund the Police (long but worth the read) at 06:39:

Is "Defund the police" damaging to the movement?

There's a sentiment you hear nowadays that goes something like, "Look, law enforcement needs an overhaul, but when you say 'defund the police,' it's too extreme. You're turning people off to your message by taking it to far."

And I'll grant you this: the first time I heard phrases like "Abolish the police," or "Defund the police," I scoffed. I rolled my eyes, I tut-tutted. I exclaimed, "Preposterous!" and my monocle flew out. For people who are very comfortable with the status quo like I was, yes, it is an extreme statement.

And that's why I like it. It's extreme, and that's why it worms its way into your head.

"How could someone say that?" It's provocative, it demands a response.

And yes, the first time someone hears it, it's probably going to provoke a negative response. But as it stays in the public consciousness longer and longer, it demands more and more engagement. As more and more prominent, non-fringe people say it, it gets harder and harder to dismiss outright.

Have you ever wondered why Coke and Pepsi spend billions of dollars to advertise their products, as if none of us ever heard of their brands before? It's because they know that repetition creates a subtle sense of legitimacy over time.

Think about walking into Alabama or Mississippi in 1830 and exclaiming, "Abolish slavery!" It would be equally shocking to the farmers of that day. They'd say, "Impossible. Our whole society is built around this institution. Where would they all go? What would we do? How would we make a living? You're asking too much. We should just incrementally reform non-consensual employment!"

But over time, the abolition movement grew into a powerful force that demanded more and more engagement from society, and eventually, it won. Nowadays, being against that kind of slavery is very normal, very mainstream.

[Note about modern day slavery being inmates working for pennies an hour essentially enslaved to corporations and the state - another idea to be abolished and replaced with something "extreme" that is more humane and sane.]

Abolitionists fought for decades to normalize an abnormal idea [for the time]. I think the Defund the Police movement is part of that tradition, and I think that we're just in the middle part right now. But if it's the right thing to do, then I'm more worried about advocating for the value of a good idea than I am about trying to hide what I really believe in.

Besides, I think Defund the Police is just like one catchy jingle away from catching on with the mainstream.

[Singing to the tune of Oscar Meyer Weiners jingle]
Oh, I wish we'd just defund police tomorrow
And use that budget on community
To feed and house and dignify our neighbors
So say it loud and proud: A C A B!

Emphasis mine.

And slavery was a much deeper and more widespread substrate to society, fueled by visceral bigotry. I think Defund the Police will only take a tiny fraction of the time it took for abolition to go mainstream, and I don't think we'll need a war to get it done.

So memorize that jingle and sing it out! Shout Medicare for All! Universal Basic Income! Lock up the Trumps! It'll get done eventually.

 

[lpetrich]

Obama: You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police' | TheHill

The Hill on Twitter: "Obama: You lose people with "snappy" slogans like "defund the police" (links)" / Twitter

Cori Bush on Twitter: "With all due respect, Mr. President—let’s talk about losing people. We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We’re losing our loved ones to police violence.

It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police." / Twitter


Eskaver on Twitter: "@CoriBush To all those concerned about the slogan:

Colin Kaepernick knelt for several games protesting police brutality.

What policy actions took place afterwards?

Nothing. Just endless conversation on whether Kaepernick was right or wrong. NOTHING CHANGED." / Twitter


Goody Weaver Cavorting At The End of The World on Twitter: "@CoriBush Thank you sister!! Please keep taking on the establishment when you take office - no more of this "Mama Bear" crap! Our family is being murdered!" / Twitter

Referring to what AOC once called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Angry Floof]

Obama was wrong when he said America is too sensible to elect Trump, and he's been wrong about many other things as well, including this.

No, we might inflame people or outrage people or make people uncomfortable when we say Defund the Police, but we won't lose people. We can only gain people. Those who don't agree are already "lost" until our ideas become mainstream and we gain them. We can't lose people with this.

Even people who agree with reforming the police but think it's a bad idea to use the word "defund," even if they never change their mind about the word, they are not lost to the idea of drastic reform. They're still interested in drastic changes in law enforcement no matter what words we use. No one is like, "Oh, I was totally gonna support law enforcement reform until you said 'defund.' Now I'm gonna go be a Republican boot licking asshole. You lost me!"

 

[lpetrich]

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "We lose people in the hands of police. It’s not a slogan but a policy demand. And centering the demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country gets us progress and safety." / Twitter

Briahna Joy Gray of The Intercept:
BJG on Twitter: "@IlhanMN Thank you for your courage." / Twitter


Estivel on Twitter: "@IlhanMN I support BLM and police reform, but "Defund the Police" is the dumbest counterproductive slogan I've ever seen. It doesn't help.

I understand the arguments of it because I have to study it. If your slogan has to be explained, it's a bad slogan." / Twitter
I agree. One must think of something simple and snappy that conveys the intended meaning. "Defund" is a flop. Perhaps something like "End overpolicing"?


(((Benjamin))) on Twitter: "@IlhanMN @brettttle What it got us was the slimmest democratic majority in the house in decades but sure. Nothing wrong with admitting the phrase is, was, and always will be awful." / Twitter

Adam Best on Twitter: "@phase_xii @IlhanMN @brettttle Nope. That's not what actually happened at all. Many moderates failed to define themselves and allowed Republicans to do it for them. When you run a bold campaign it’s harder for them to do that even in red areas. Look at Katie Porter and Sherrod Brown." / Twitter

AOC complains that when she beat Joe Crowley, nobody asked her what she might have done right and what he might have done wrong. JC was in the House for 20 years - 10 House terms - when AOC unseated him, and he was the 4th most powerful House Democrat and a possible future House Speaker.

Greg Sargent on Twitter: "@Redistrict @DamonLinker @lkatfield @EricLevitz @davidshor Also interesting: @AOC and "the Squad" aren't really to blame for Dem downballot losses.

More important, says @Redistrict, is Dem candidates didn't do enough to communicate *their own* stances on policing.

Great anecdote about a Biden pollster here: (links)" / Twitter

Greg Sargent on Twitter: "@Redistrict @DamonLinker @lkatfield @EricLevitz @davidshor @AOC Finally, the 2022 midterms could defy expectations, for hidden reasons: (links)" / Twitter

Opinion | Why did Democrats bleed House seats? A top analyst offers surprising answers. - The Washington Post

Greg Sargent on Twitter: "@Redistrict @DamonLinker @lkatfield @EricLevitz @davidshor @AOC Relatedly, here's a typically great @RonBrownstein analysis that develops the fundamental points as to why Trump was not a liability for downballot Rs. With @mollyereynolds and @LPDonovan: (links)" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Jamaal Bowman on Twitter: "Damn, Mr. President.

Didn’t you say “Trayvon could’ve been my son?”

In 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was too much.

In 2016, Kaepernick was too much.

Today, discussing police budgets is too much.

The problem is America's comfort with Black death -- not discomfort with slogans." / Twitter


Ayanna Pressley on Twitter: "The murders of generations of unarmed Black folks by police have been horrific. Lives are at stake daily so I’m out of patience with critiques of the language of activists.

Whatever a grieving family says is their truth.

And I’ll never stop fighting for their justice & healing." / Twitter

 

[Angry Floof]

Jamaal Bowman on Twitter: "Damn, Mr. President.

Didn’t you say “Trayvon could’ve been my son?”

In 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was too much.

In 2016, Kaepernick was too much.

Today, discussing police budgets is too much.

The problem is America's comfort with Black death -- not discomfort with slogans." / Twitter

BAM. That's what I'm talking about.

Ayanna Pressley on Twitter: "The murders of generations of unarmed Black folks by police have been horrific. Lives are at stake daily so I’m out of patience with critiques of the language of activists.

Whatever a grieving family says is their truth.

And I’ll never stop fighting for their justice & healing." / Twitter

And this. Y'all keep pushing it and we'll keep pushing back and reminding you just how oblivious and status quo comfortable you are.