Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Loren Pechtel]

I note nothing in your reply that gives a better solution other than suggesting the police should have risked death to take the guy alive.

Well, duh. That's their job.

I note that you have apparently no clue that police routinely and frequently disarm able bodied suspects who are brandishing knives. It's not easy, but it's a fundamental part of their job, and they can and should be trained to do it.

If you can sneak up on someone, yeah, but otherwise it's a pretty high risk move that we don't expect police to engage in.

I'm not surprised, most people have a very hard time comprehending blasphemy.

What the fuck are you blathering about?

It's basically a religious position: that when there's a bad outcome the side with the power has to be the one in the wrong. I've pointed this out many times but since it's blasphemy it never sinks in.

This isn't about religion, it's about people whose job is to take suspects alive, and to take on a small degree of personal risk in doing so, instead deciding to kill someone.

It's like you have been asked to resolve a discrepancy in a customer's database, and your immediate response is to just delete the entire thing and all its backups. No database, no discrepancy, right? It might have been possible to fix the problem some other way, but that would have entailed both significant effort on your part, and a real risk the the problem would still exist by the deadline for completion of the work.

Can you grasp why this simple and effective solution might not be considered reasonable or appropriate?

And in my example, nobody is dead at the end. Are you incapable of grasping that needless deaths even of people who might have committed crimes are a tragedy that is worth taking risks to prevent?

It's not your skin on the line, you don't see the problem.

It doesn't matter whether he's committed crimes. He's clearly demonstrated he's a threat to anyone around. Non-lethal was tried and failed.

 

[bilby]

it's a pretty high risk move that we don't expect police to engage in

Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

[bilby]

Non-lethal was tried and failed.

Failure isn't necessarily a sign that the attempt was futile; It can equally be a sign that the attempt was incompetent.

 

[Patooka]

Non-lethal was tried and failed.

Failure isn't necessarily a sign that the attempt was futile; It can equally be a sign that the attempt was incompetent.

Or half arsed, Or only a token effort. It reminds me of a satirical news show where the hit job piece ended with, "We attempted to contact the owners of SomethingCorp for their side of the story, but they declined to comment", knowing full well they attempted to contact SomethingCorp 0.000001 seconds before the story aired.

"He's got a knife, grab theSHOOT THAT MOTHERFUCKER!"

Non-lethal force was tried and failed, the guy had to die.

 

[laughing dog]

in a world of hard surfaces you can't guarantee a round won't ricochet.

Of course you can. It's trivially easy.

Just don't fire a gun.

There was absolutely nothing about the situation that made firing a gun necessary or reasonable.

Continuing to assert this doesn't make it so. What were the police supposed to do? Follow along until he stabs someone else? You are committing the standard leftist sin of seeing a bad situation and assuming that the side with the power could have handled it better.

There's absolutely no question whatsoever that the police could and should have handled this better.

I note nothing in your reply that gives a better solution other than suggesting the police should have risked death to take the guy alive. I'm not surprised, most people have a very hard time comprehending blasphemy.

These police risked absolutely nothing. They did not bother to really take this person alive. They just took a few steps and fired away.

No one was asking these police to rush into a fusillade of bullets. The expectation that these police should have done more than open fire from a fleeing suspect on "foot" (without legs) is not unrealistic.

You have no idea to what extent the risk to officers' lives increased if they had pursued the suspect a little longer. You have proffered the inane defense that they had to worry about richochets when the officers clearly did not care about that.



People risk death every second of their lives. Using your reasoning, the police are justified in shooting anyone anytime. The police are paid to risk their lives.

 

[laughing dog]

I note nothing in your reply that gives a better solution other than suggesting the police should have risked death to take the guy alive.

Well, duh. That's their job.

I note that you have apparently no clue that police routinely and frequently disarm able bodied suspects who are brandishing knives. It's not easy, but it's a fundamental part of their job, and they can and should be trained to do it.

If you can sneak up on someone, yeah, but otherwise it's a pretty high risk move that we don't expect police to engage in.

You are using the royal "we".

It's basically a religious position: that when there's a bad outcome the side with the power has to be the one in the wrong. I've pointed this out many times but since it's blasphemy it never sinks in.

How is it any more religious than "The police are justified to killing anyone whenever they feel scared or too lazy to do the work"?

This isn't about religion, it's about people whose job is

It's not your skin on the line, you don't see the problem.

Exactly - you think it is not your skin that is going to be perforated by bullets, so you don't see the problem.

 

[Patooka]

Imagine if all the other First Responders were as indiscriminate in violence as cops are. I'm sure we would all be fine with that.

 

[marc]

Well gee, video of UK police disarming a guy with a machete. All done without guns, AND the guy had two legs.

UK Cops Disarm Man Wielding a Machete | Firsthand | CBC

Watch how UK police surround and capture a distraught man bringing him safely to a hospital. Subscribe: http://bit.ly/CBCSubscribeWatch CBC: http://bit.ly/CB...

youtu.be

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Non-lethal was tried and failed.

Failure isn't necessarily a sign that the attempt was futile; It can equally be a sign that the attempt was incompetent.

Two taser shots, both ineffective. That strongly suggests his clothes were enough to stop tasers--not uncommon in cold weather.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well gee, video of UK police disarming a guy with a machete. All done without guns, AND the guy had two legs.

UK Cops Disarm Man Wielding a Machete | Firsthand | CBC

Watch how UK police surround and capture a distraught man bringing him safely to a hospital. Subscribe: http://bit.ly/CBCSubscribeWatch CBC: http://bit.ly/CB...

youtu.be

The guy stayed put giving them time to bring in riot shields. The situation is not comparable at all.

 

[bilby]

Non-lethal was tried and failed.

Failure isn't necessarily a sign that the attempt was futile; It can equally be a sign that the attempt was incompetent.

Two taser shots, both ineffective. That strongly suggests his clothes were enough to stop tasers--not uncommon in cold weather.

...and it goes without saying that this leaves no alternative whatsoever than to shoot the man dead.

I'm suggesting the cops should be competent. I said nothing whatsoever about tasers, and "Taser" isn't a synonym for "competently disarm a person with no legs".

You appear to be having a fantasy conversation about a fantasy situation.

 

[bilby]

The guy stayed put

...unlike the guy with no legs, who was obviously about to disappear over the horizon at Usain Bolt speed...

 

[Derec]

...unlike the guy with no legs, who was obviously about to disappear over the horizon at Usain Bolt speed...

Oscar Pistorius may be a better comparison, but nobody is saying Lowe was a world class sprinter.
You don't have to be fast to be dangerous. As Lowe demonstrated when he stabbed and almost killed a guy.

 

[Derec]

No one was asking these police to rush into a fusillade of bullets. The expectation that these police should have done more than open fire from a fleeing suspect on "foot" (without legs) is not unrealistic.

Expecting police to tackle a guy wielding a 12" knife is unrealistic. Police are not required to take unreasonable level of risk.

You have no idea to what extent the risk to officers' lives increased if they had pursued the suspect a little longer.

Neither do you.

People risk death every second of their lives. Using your reasoning, the police are justified in shooting anyone anytime. The police are paid to risk their lives.

Nobody is saying "anyone, anytime". And they are not paid to incur unreasonable level of risk either.

 

[Derec]

Police who kill suspects to reduce risk to the police are as fucking pointless as fire fighters who refuse to approach burning buildings because they don't want to risk injury or death. It's the job. If they don't like it, they can retrain as accountants.

Not at all analogous, but even firefighters will not enter a burning building when the risk is deemed too high.

Your committing the standard Loren Pechtel sin of assuming that police have a greater right to personal safety than suspects. The opposite is true, always.

Your talk about "sin" underscores Loren's assertion that this is an ersatz religion.
And I disagree with that doctrine anyway. Police officers have a greater right to personal safety than a perp who just stabbed a man almost to death.

Police deserve public respect because they risk their lives for the public. ALL of the public. Including those they are supposed to be arresting.

If feasible. They should not be overly trigger-happy.
But this was a demonstrably armed and dangerous individual on whom less-lethal measures have been tried and failed.

The instant that they refuse to risk injury or death, and instead choose to kill a person, they cease to deserve any respect whatsoever, and are no longer doing the job of a police officer.

Do you think police must incur any level of risk to avoid shooting a perp?

Respect for police doesn't come from their uniform, badge, or gun. It comes from their bravery, self-sacrifice, and care for the people they serve. And make no mistake, suspects are people who the police are duty bound to serve.

Police officers are still people who want to get home alive at the end of their shift.
The old maxim applies to them too: better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

You seriously need to re-think your attitude.

I think you do. A violent perp's life is not worth more than a cop's. A dead police officer is not preferable to a dead suspect.

 

[Derec]

Encarnacion found herself holding the case file for the notorious killing of Mario Romero, a young father whose death at the hands of Vallejo police in 2012 sparked citywide protests.

Why are these news outlets always so obsessed with the reproductive status of people shot by police? That he had unprotected sex has no bearing on the shooting. What is relevant is that Romero was a felon who pulled a pellet gun which is a realistic replica of a Beretta handgun on some cops investigating gang crime.
Vallejo Police Defend Shooting Man With Pellet Gun 31 Times

Mario Romero, 23, known as "Papaya" by friends, died before dawn Sunday and his brother-in-law, Joseph Johnson, 21, was shot through his hip and hospitalized.
Officers were in the 100 block area of Pepper Drive, an area known for its gang activity, around 4:30 a.m. when they saw a car with two men inside, police shined their lights and approached.
Police said Romero reached for a gun and officers then fired 31 rounds. Romero's weapon turned out to be a non-lethal pellet gun, police acknowleged[sic].
[...]
Romero and Johnson were on probation for felony weapons charges at they time they were shot by officers, according to police, who indicated there was conflicting information as to whether the two had gang ties. Authorities also said 50 ecstasy pills of were found inside the car that the pair were sitting in.
The officers involved in the shootings of Romero and Johnson were put on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.
The Airsoft gun Romero was carrying is a replica of a Beretta firearm that fires plastic pellets or BBs and is widely used for recreation, according to authorities.

 

[Derec]

They George Floyded him before George Floyd was a thing.

Except that Tony Timpa was white and thus the officers were not convicted. The city did not get burned down by "peaceful protesters" either.

 

[Derec]

Reproductive status?

Yes. How is him having kids relevant to the shooting at all?

 

[laughing dog]

No one was asking these police to rush into a fusillade of bullets. The expectation that these police should have done more than open fire from a fleeing suspect on "foot" (without legs) is not unrealistic.

Expecting police to tackle a guy wielding a 12" knife is unrealistic. Police are not required to take unreasonable level of risk.

It is not an unreasonable risk to expect some effort before blowing away someone.

You have no idea to what extent the risk to officers' lives increased if they had pursued the suspect a little longer.

Neither do you.

I am not the one claiming they had no choice. The onus is on those who defend this action.

People risk death every second of their lives. Using your reasoning, the police are justified in shooting anyone anytime. The police are paid to risk their lives.

Nobody is saying "anyone, anytime". And they are not paid to incur unreasonable level of risk either.

This was no an unreasonable level of risk - as the link marc presented.

I saw the video. When an officer dumped him out of his wheel chair, that was the closest any of them got to him. The officers didn't even try to surround him or cut off his escape.

 

[laughing dog]

Encarnacion found herself holding the case file for the notorious killing of Mario Romero, a young father whose death at the hands of Vallejo police in 2012 sparked citywide protests.

Why are these news outlets always so obsessed with the reproductive status of people shot by police?

I find your question rather ironic given your penchant to dredge any irrelevant negative detail about a black shooting victim of the police.

To an ordinary human being, a report that someone was a father (or a mother) informs the reader that the person had at least a child. While that may not interest you, it may interest others.