-
Features
Police Misconduct Catch All Thread
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
Without watching it and giving it clicks, I am guessing his conclusion is that the results of defunding police are great, and not at all horrible?
Derec
Contributor
Had he just stopped like a normal person and not led the cops on a long chase, there would be no reason to release the hounds.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,231
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
There was no reason to release the hounds when it was done.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Well, I am only part way through and though you are completely wrong about the content I admit that you’re probably right because guessing is probably more accurate than learning.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,740
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
If you can think of a better way to defend freedom than requiring people to unquestioningly and immediately obey every command given by a police officer, then I would like to hear it.
Derec
Contributor
Indeed. That's why the guy was fired.
But my point still stands. Had the trucker not led the police on a chase through several counties, this would not have happened.
And it could have ended worse. He could have crashed, even killed himself. And for what? To avoid a possible ticket?
Derec
Contributor
Do you think people should have the right to flee from police during a traffic stop?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,740
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No I don't.
Do you think that the police should have the right to kill people if they attempt to do so?
It seems you might have misinterpreted my comment. My point was that according to Derec, in America, defying the police gives them the authority to do whatever they want to you. It appears you're suggesting that because I disagree with an officer directing a K9 to attack a compliant individual, I don't understand or value the role of law enforcement. That's an unexpected conclusion.
That's not why he was fired. He was fired because he kept blabbing on about the incident like a little bitch when he was instructed not to talk about it.
I observe once more that there seems to be an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers due to certain police actions. Even when they had a clear-cut case against an individual for refusing to stop, a lapse in judgment from an officer led to a potential multi-million dollar lawsuit. Right Mr. "black people filing race based frivolous lawsuits are making things more expensive for everyone" Derec?
Derec
Contributor
Oh, good. Because your quip made it sound as if you thought it was a matter of "freedom" to disobey lawful orders from police, including getting pulled over while driving a truck. And that sounded a bit sovereign citizenish to me.
No. Not for that alone.
There are scenarios where lethal force against fleeing suspects is justified, however. If the vehicle is used as a weapon to strike or drag an officer for example. Or when a perp is armed and showed himself to be a danger to others and is trying to flee the scene. You can't let somebody like that get away and hurt or kill an innocent bystander later.
Derec
Contributor
The problem with these lawsuits is that often multimillion dollar settlements or verdicts happen ((almost) exclusively with black perps) even when the police did nothing wrong. Like the $32M verdict against police who killed the sovereign citizen nutter Korryn Gaines who threatened police with a shotgun.
These lawsuits cannot be an incentive for police to behave better if they get successfully sued no matter whether they actually do anything wrong.
Yes. A lot of these lawsuits are only successful because of race of the plaintiffs.
Derec
Contributor
Derec
Contributor
I definitely do not have time to watch an hour long video that was described as "meh" by the person who posted it.
The success of these lawsuits stems directly from the police's inability to perform their duties correctly.
Furthermore, you're generalizing based on high-profile incidents rather than the broader landscape. And if you're concerned about taxpayer dollars, reconsidering qualified immunity might be a prudent step.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,740
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There are; But they are incredibly rare.
Why an officer? Officers are there to put themselves in danger, so the general public doesn't have to. That the target is an officer should make it less imperative to stop the offender, not more so.
An offender who is randomly assaulting people is a far more dangerous threat than an offender who is only assaulting people who are clearly intent on stopping him.
Sure. If there's a compelling reason to believe that they have an intent to kill innocent bystanders.
Such situations are so rare as to occur maybe once a decade. They're not a daily occurrence, and not something individual police officers should expect to ever encounter.
Merely departing the scene in possession of a firearm (which in the USA is a constitutional right) shouldn't be sufficient grounds to deploy lethal force.