Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[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.

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?

Your interpretation, not reality.

I'm not talking about could have tried to take. I'm talking about actually trying to grab. For example, Michael Brown. His DNA was on the 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.

You continue to operate on faith. I'm saying "unarmed" includes people trying to grab the officer's stuff. (I won't say gun because we do have a case where the cop shot because the guy got his taser.) I am not saying all unarmed cases are trying to grab the officer's stuff, just that many are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Philando Castille would like a word.
Oh, wait. He was shot for just saying he had a permitted gun.
Never mind. It *is* just possession.

One big reason why you remember his name eight years later is that this kind of situation is highly unlikely. And in a country as big as ours, with 333M people, even very unlikely things will happen occasionally. That does not mean that police shoot people for "just possession" with any regularity.

Exactly. We hear about these things and know names because they are rare. Common stuff is not news! This causes a major bias in people's perceptions of how likely things are to happen, there's a tendency to think the rare is common (because we hear about it) but the common is rare (because we don't hear about it.)

Simple test: Consider how many people are included in a circle centered on you and extending to the event. And consider how many people are actually relevant to the event. The ratio gives a reasonable perception of the rarity of the event in question. Cop shoots truly innocent makes nationwide news.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the record, of course the police claim they announced themselves. Wouldn’t you make that claim? It may or may not be true. We will never actually know. But imagine you are awakeNed in the middle of the night by an intruder. You may or may not hear the intruder announce themselves. And you may or may not be awake enough to grasp that it is the police. And you may or may not perceive that they are not a danger to you. Perhaps less if you are not white. BTW, this is one of my arguments against gun ownership: unintentionally shooting an intruder who is actually a family member or someone else who was not a threat. And yes, I’ve encountered someone unexpected in my home in the middle of the night and been very grateful I did not have a gun.

What would I have done had I been the officers? I don’t know. But firing my weapon would not be an automatic response.

Yes, we do have a problem with how searches are conducted.

I would presume it's true--but note that if someone is awakened by "Police! Search Warrant!" that there's a good chance they do not hear the words. You awaken to the noise and only then become aware of words.

But note the situation: felon in possession. And clearly living a life of crime in that he thought it was rivals.

 

[marc]

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?

Your interpretation, not reality.

Very much reality. Ok, so what is your 'interpretation' in which unarmed people are regularly shot by police for thinking they might be a threat, yet those same police would not be a danger to people who are actually carrying a weapon?

I'm not talking about could have tried to take. I'm talking about actually trying to grab. For example, Michael Brown. His DNA was on the gun.

No you are not. Whenever an unarmed person is killed you have brought out this 'trying to grab' excuse, and I cannot think of a single time when that has been plausible. Not that long ago you trotted out this tired excuse for the kidnapping victim, and when video came out it showed she was crawling, at least 20 feet away from the nearest cop, who was calling for her to come over to him. And you never admitted that she was not 'trying to grab his gun'. So who is the one not dealing with reality?

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.

You continue to operate on faith. I'm saying "unarmed" includes people trying to grab the officer's stuff. (I won't say gun because we do have a case where the cop shot because the guy got his taser.) I am not saying all unarmed cases are trying to grab the officer's stuff, just that many are.
[/QUOTE]
The one operating on faith is you, faith that every police shooting is justified, regardless of the evidence. Ok, you are now not saying all unarmed cases are trying to grab a weapon, but every time one of these cases come up that is the excuse you give before any evidence is available, and I've never seen you recant after the actual evidence has come forward. Heck, I can't think of any shooting that was in the news where it was ever shown that is what the victim was doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What other explanation is there for somebody who shot an innocent woman for no reason getting off so lightly?
Note that ALL the justices on the MN Subprime Court are Democrats.

Because he didn't intend murder. He was guilty of an epic screwup.

 

[laughing dog]

For the record, of course the police claim they announced themselves. Wouldn’t you make that claim? It may or may not be true. We will never actually know. But imagine you are awakeNed in the middle of the night by an intruder. You may or may not hear the intruder announce themselves. And you may or may not be awake enough to grasp that it is the police. And you may or may not perceive that they are not a danger to you. Perhaps less if you are not white. BTW, this is one of my arguments against gun ownership: unintentionally shooting an intruder who is actually a family member or someone else who was not a threat. And yes, I’ve encountered someone unexpected in my home in the middle of the night and been very grateful I did not have a gun.

What would I have done had I been the officers? I don’t know. But firing my weapon would not be an automatic response.

Yes, we do have a problem with how searches are conducted.

I would presume it's true--but note that if someone is awakened by "Police! Search Warrant!" that there's a good chance they do not hear the words. You awaken to the noise and only then become aware of words.

But note the situation: felon in possession. And clearly living a life of crime in that he thought it was rivals.

And that justifues Ms Taylor’s death by police because….?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm saying "unarmed" includes people trying to grab the officer's stuff. (I won't say gun because we do have a case where the cop shot because the guy got his taser.) I am not saying all unarmed cases are trying to grab the officer's stuff, just that many are.

If someone is grabbing for a weapon they are unarmed at the time. If they are called, then the officer is armed and may have time to take nonlethal measures.
So your argument is pretty flimsy as an excuse.

 

[Toni]

For the record, of course the police claim they announced themselves. Wouldn’t you make that claim? It may or may not be true. We will never actually know. But imagine you are awakeNed in the middle of the night by an intruder. You may or may not hear the intruder announce themselves. And you may or may not be awake enough to grasp that it is the police. And you may or may not perceive that they are not a danger to you. Perhaps less if you are not white. BTW, this is one of my arguments against gun ownership: unintentionally shooting an intruder who is actually a family member or someone else who was not a threat. And yes, I’ve encountered someone unexpected in my home in the middle of the night and been very grateful I did not have a gun.

What would I have done had I been the officers? I don’t know. But firing my weapon would not be an automatic response.

Yes, we do have a problem with how searches are conducted.

I would presume it's true--but note that if someone is awakened by "Police! Search Warrant!" that there's a good chance they do not hear the words. You awaken to the noise and only then become aware of words.

But note the situation: felon in possession. And clearly living a life of crime in that he thought it was rivals.

No, YOU note the actual situation: Police were looking for a felon who did not live at that address and had not lived there for some time. The felon was in custody. The police fucked up. Someone who was not a police officer died. Note: this happens MUCH more frequently than police being shot by their suspect or some other person.

The actual person who died was asleep in her own bed. The boyfriend got arrested and charged for firing at an intruder, —who, unbeknownst to him were the police— who had NO legitimate reason fir showing up in the middle of the night— costing him time and money and perhaps his job and reputation. AND THE WOMAN HE LOVED.

Please note that the person they sought, who was already in custody, was not wanted for violent offenses but for drug charges.

Please note that the police who invaded Taylor’s home were not in uniform.

They claimed they identified themselves as police but we do not know that is true. The officer whose shots killed Taylor claimed he ‘thought he saw’ someone with an AK style weapon through the covered window and door, causing him to fire the deadly shots into Taylor’s bedroom, killing her. That claim seems unlikely to be true but instead was a false justification for the officer’s actions.

Please no te that Taylor’s neighbors were also endangered by the police that night.

And please note as well that other police officers knowingly falsely filed documents in order to obtain no knock warrants.

So-called ‘swatting’ is a crime or at least it is when carried out against a political opponent. I’s certain you find seating to be unjustifiable but here you are, defending police for swatting Taylor’s apartment.

 

[Gospel]

Philando Castille would like a word.
Oh, wait. He was shot for just saying he had a permitted gun.
Never mind. It *is* just possession.

One big reason why you remember his name eight years later is that this kind of situation is highly unlikely. And in a country as big as ours, with 333M people, even very unlikely things will happen occasionally. That does not mean that police shoot people for "just possession" with any regularity.

Exactly. We hear about these things and know names because they are rare. Common stuff is not news! This causes a major bias in people's perceptions of how likely things are to happen, there's a tendency to think the rare is common (because we hear about it) but the common is rare (because we don't hear about it.)

Simple test: Consider how many people are included in a circle centered on you and extending to the event. And consider how many people are actually relevant to the event. The ratio gives a reasonable perception of the rarity of the event in question. Cop shoots truly innocent makes nationwide news.

What you and Derec both seem to understand is that police do make mistakes. I get that you dislike it when people exaggerate the frequency of those mistakes, and I agree with you. However, I wouldn't tell someone who just lost a family member that the police get it right most of the time, so they should cut them some slack. I wager neither of you would do the same so.....

 

[laughing dog]

For the record, of course the police claim they announced themselves. Wouldn’t you make that claim? It may or may not be true. We will never actually know. But imagine you are awakeNed in the middle of the night by an intruder. You may or may not hear the intruder announce themselves. And you may or may not be awake enough to grasp that it is the police. And you may or may not perceive that they are not a danger to you. Perhaps less if you are not white. BTW, this is one of my arguments against gun ownership: unintentionally shooting an intruder who is actually a family member or someone else who was not a threat. And yes, I’ve encountered someone unexpected in my home in the middle of the night and been very grateful I did not have a gun.

What would I have done had I been the officers? I don’t know. But firing my weapon would not be an automatic response.

Yes, we do have a problem with how searches are conducted.

I would presume it's true--but note that if someone is awakened by "Police! Search Warrant!" that there's a good chance they do not hear the words. You awaken to the noise and only then become aware of words.

But note the situation: felon in possession. And clearly living a life of crime in that he thought it was rivals.

No, YOU note the actual situation: Police were looking for a felon who did not live at that address and had not lived there for some time. The felon was in custody. The police fucked up. Someone who was not a police officer died. Note: this happens MUCH more frequently than police being shot by their suspect or some other person.

The police lied to get their warrant. Which technically makes the warrant illegal, which means they were committing a crime even by entering. Hence Walker had every right to shoot at them (his charges were dismissed with prejudice). Since Ms. Taylor's death occurred while the police were engaged in criminal behavior, they should have been charged with felony murder. Hmmm.

 

[laughing dog]

Philando Castille would like a word.
Oh, wait. He was shot for just saying he had a permitted gun.
Never mind. It *is* just possession.

One big reason why you remember his name eight years later is that this kind of situation is highly unlikely. And in a country as big as ours, with 333M people, even very unlikely things will happen occasionally. That does not mean that police shoot people for "just possession" with any regularity.

Exactly. We hear about these things and know names because they are rare. Common stuff is not news! This causes a major bias in people's perceptions of how likely things are to happen, there's a tendency to think the rare is common (because we hear about it) but the common is rare (because we don't hear about it.)

Simple test: Consider how many people are included in a circle centered on you and extending to the event. And consider how many people are actually relevant to the event. The ratio gives a reasonable perception of the rarity of the event in question. Cop shoots truly innocent makes nationwide news.

What you and Derec both seem to understand is that police do make mistakes. I get that you dislike it when people exaggerate the frequency of those mistakes, and I agree with you. However, I wouldn't tell someone who just lost a family member that the police get it right most of the time, so they should cut them some slack. I wager neither of you would do the same so.....

When viewed through the lens of human decency, the (infrequency) of lethal "mistakes" is inconsequential because the outcomes of those "mistakes" are neither reversible nor rectifiable.

 

[lpetrich]

Justin Timberlake arrested for driving while intoxicated in Sag Harbor - June 18, 2024, 2:36 p.m. ET

Justin Timberlake was busted for allegedly driving drunk in the Hamptons early Tuesday after blowing a stop sign and swerving out of his lane — saying under his breath to the cop, “This is going to ruin the tour,” sources told The Post.

The “SexyBack” singer, 43 — who is in the middle of a world tour including with dates in the Big Apple next week — was pulled over in Sag Harbor, LI, just after midnight and charged with driving while intoxicated and cited for running a stop sign and failure to keep in his lane, court documents show.

He told arresting officers he had just “one martini, and I followed my friends home’’ — while refusing three times to take a Breathalyzer test.

...
Timberlake — a married dad of two who has acknowledged previous issues with “excessive drinking” — attempted to pass field sobriety tests, which he failed miserably, according to court documents.

The singer, a former kiddie Mouseketeer on the “Mickey Mouse Club,” appeared in court later in the morning looking rough in a black baseball cap, gray graphic t-shirt with “Live Circuit” on it and black short-sleeve button-up and was released without bail.

Justin Timberlake was 'wasted' and drinking other people's drinks: witness - June 18, 2024, 2:36 p.m. ET

“He was wasted. At one point, just before closing, somebody got up to go to the bathroom and left his drink on the table,’’ the source said of the scene at the posh American Hotel in Sag Harbor, LI, in the wee hours.

“When [the man] came back, [Timberlake] was drinking his drink.

“The guy goes, “Justin, that’s my drink!’’ the source said.

Justin Timberlake's mugshot reveals singer's bloodshot, glassy eyes moments after DWI arrest in Hamptons - June 18, 2024, 4:41 p.m. ET

Justin Timberlake's lawyer Edward Burke Jr. breaks silence on Hamptons DWI bust - June 19, 2024, 2:15 p.m. ET

Justin Timberlake's mugshot lighting frenzy: 'New headshots at the Sag Harbor Police Dept.?' - June 20, 2024, 9:41 a.m. ET

‘Dumbass’ Justin Timberlake ignored warning minutes before DWI bust – from same cop who ended up arresting him - June 22, 2024, 7:45 a.m. ET

A local law enforcement source told The Post that Timberlake, 43, was actually stopped twice on Tuesday morning in Sag Harbor on Long Island.

The first time, he received a warning not to continue with his trip.

“He was stopped and advised not to drive,” the source said of the “Cry Me a River” crooner. “The officer didn’t recognize him; he’s a young guy. And he still gave Justin a break, because he didn’t pose an immediate danger.”

So far so good.

 

[lpetrich]

Rookie Sag Harbor cop who arrested Justin Timberlake didn't know singer, known by locals for strict enforcement

Officer Michael Arkinson, who turns 24 this month, stopped the “SexyBack” singer Tuesday morning after allegedly seeing him blow a stop sign and swerve in the right lane.

In just three months on the force, Arkinson has earned a reputation among Sag Harbor’s wealthy residents, earning nicknames like “the Sag Harbor Nazi” and “little redheaded dips–t” for his strict enforcement of traffic laws.

So they hate cops who are tough on crime when it is them who are committing the crimes.

Like

A writer from Shelter Island who identified himself as Spencer recounted an unpleasant encounter with Arkinson while searching for a parking spot in Sag Harbor and making a U-turn.

“I was surprised he pulled me over,” Spencer told the Daily Mail.

“It was off-season, and no one was around. It was a d–khead move. I felt like he pulled me over just for the sake of doing it.”

Although Spencer received a warning, Arkinson wasn’t so lenient on their next run-in.

Pulled over for talking on his cellphone, Spencer protested that he was using speakerphone.

“I thought he would give me a break … It really interrupted my workout and lunch plans.

“‘I think Justin Timberlake was a victim of over-aggressive Sag Harbor police,” he added.

Despite his explanations, Arkinson slapped him with a $145 ticket.

So he got angry with this cop for acting so law-and-order on him.

Back to Justin Timberlake,

On the night of Timberlake’s arrest, Arkinson noted in his report that Timberlake performed “poorly on all standardized field sobriety tests,” reeked of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet, and had slow speech.

 

[lpetrich]

Fortunately, there are plenty of other sources other than the New York Post.
Justin Timberlake charged with driving while intoxicated in the Hamptons | AP News - 5:59 PM PDT, June 18, 2024

“His eyes were bloodshot and glassy, a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage was emanating from his breath, he was unable to divide attention, he had slowed speech, he was unsteady afoot and he performed poorly on all standardized field sobriety tests,” the court papers said.

Timberlake, 43, told the officer he had one martini and was following some friends home, according to the documents. After being arrested and taken to a police station in nearby East Hampton, he refused a breath test, said the court papers, which listed his occupation as “professional” and said he’s “self-employed.”

Also
Justin Timberlake Released from Custody Following DWI Arrest - June 19, 2024 09:55AM EDT
and
Justin Timberlake Expresses 'Gratitude' for Fans at Show Following DWI Arrest - June 23, 2024 03:04PM EDT

But the New York Post is the only source I've found on that cop's reputation as too law-and-order for some of the people of his town.

 

[thebeave]

Where is the police misconduct here? He was just doing his job, seems to me.

 

[lpetrich]

Where is the police misconduct here? He was just doing his job, seems to me.

That's the point - that he is doing his job well, and some people are outraged that he is finding them guilty of traffic violations.

 

[thebeave]

Where is the police misconduct here? He was just doing his job, seems to me.

That's the point - that he is doing his job well, and some people are outraged that he is finding them guilty of traffic violations.

Boo hoo...waaaahhhh. Fuck 'em. No one likes being given a traffic ticket, least of all myself. I've had my share of speeding tickets, parking tickets, illegal right turns, etc. with hefty fines and annoying traffic school to boot. I blame myself in every case, not the cop who was doing his job. I still don't understand what this has to do with police misconduct.

 

[ZiprHead]

'He enjoys hurting people': Cop who punched people he pulled over repeatedly is sentenced

A former sheriff's deputy is headed to prison after the FBI and state police uncovered a long series of his abuses and a penchant for "sadism" that often led the deputy to punch people he pulled over.

lawandcrime.com

A former sheriff’s deputy in Kentucky who prosecutors say targeted people smaller and weaker than himself before he punched or assaulted them during routine traffic stops has been sentenced to a little over nine years in prison, according to a statement from the U.S. Justice Department.

A jury found Tanner M. Abbott of Danville, once a deputy at the Boyle County Sheriff’s Office, guilty of multiple charges including four counts of violating constitutional rights, a single charge of conspiracy and a single charge of falsifying records. Abbott, 31, was fired in 2021 after posting the identity of a confidential informant on Facebook upon discovering that person had criticized him on social media. He had first joined the sheriff’s office in 2017 after working as a pizza delivery driver, according to court records.

A series of formal complaints about Abbott’s conduct while he wore a badge prompted what would be a two-year-long investigation by the FBI and Kentucky State Police. He would not face charges until 2023. He was tried and convicted by a jury in March.

“Instead of protecting and serving the community, the defendant was physically abusing people — even bragging about the injuries he caused,” U.S. Attorney Carlton Shier said on June 21. “That is not law enforcement; that is brazen criminal conduct. The community deserved better. Fortunately, he now has a criminal sentence that he deserves.”

In a sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors in May, extensive details about the violent episodes were unraveled.

Wutta nice guy...