Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[twa]

May be true? 

 

many of your fine victims needed killing in a significant way.

[DogofWar1]

May be true? 

 

many of your fine victims needed killing in a significant way.

 

And in cases where they didn't?  What, it's just the cost of doing business?

 

Disgusting.  Utterly disgusting.  It devalues human life to nothing.  We see every week more unarmed people dying.  You can't hand-wave that.

 

"Oh well, unarmed people keep dying?  Eh, whatever, I'm sure a lot of people deserved it."

 

We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!  WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT!

 

You do understand how charges and convictions, for even minor crimes, create a permanent underclass in this country, right?

 

If you're wondering why people turn to crime, or turn to drugs, or have bad acquaintances, you have no further to look than the system that forced them and their ancestors into it, and that keeps perpetuating it, with one of the primary ways of it being done being the police.  You force people into low wage jobs (or unemployment) from which they have no opportunity to escape (except perhaps crime), and some are going to turn out bad.  

 

Congrats, you've just created a situation for people that allows you to justify killing those same people!  Good job.  America, and such!  George Washington must be so proud!

__________________________________________

 

Moreover, you say there are more crazies in the US, but provide no quantitative evidence.  So yes, "may be true" is the appropriate phrase to use, though it's worth noting my use of "that may be true" was actually use in the "X may be true, BUT Y" form, which agrees with X; it doesn't dispute it as, say, saying "That's maybe true."

 

Further, you don't discuss why we kill SO DARN MANY more people in the US than in other countries.  Do we really have 100X the  bad people that other countries do?  Somehow I doubt that.  If you're going to essentially say we've got 100X the bad people of the UK, you should probably back that up with data, or something.

__________________________________________

 

Something else I've been wanting to bring up for a while is how damaging just a charge, not even a conviction, can be.  I wrote a paper on it (hastily, due to the worst end of semester exam schedule ever, but still finished it) and the harm is surprising.  I hadn't really thought about the issue before hand, but I stumbled across some statistics during one of my classes and wanted to investigate more.

 

Police and the prosecutors who work with those police (usually off of police statements) do more damage than they know.

 

There's a powerpoint you can download from here:

http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/backgroundcheckcriminalchecks.aspx

that details a survey of corporations looking into background checks.

 

31% of companies said an arrest record alone was somewhat or very influential in terms of a decision to hire or not.

 

37% of companies do not allow people to explain themselves before a decision on their hiring is made.

 

That's a problematic combination if you've ever been arrested, even without a conviction.

 

Then you add in that lots of background checking services are woefully incomplete/incorrect for a variety of reasons, biggest being a lack of uniformity in reporting standards, often to the accused's detriment, across states.  Report is here, though it's kinda tough to sift through: http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/broken-records-report.pdf

 

Now, admittedly not all these issues are ones that we can lay at the feet of police.  Many of them come from state reporting requirements, or alternatively, the background check companies, and mismatched records with regards to mistaken identity are unfortunate mix-ups not on the police, but outside of mismatches, an arrest (without a conviction) tends to be the starting point of issues.

 

When police arrest someone, it has far reaching consequences for that person's life.  Abuse of the power to arrest through constitutional violations should be inexcusable in the USA.

 

This, for minorities, compounds with the racism, patent and latent, in the corporate world.  Various studies have looked at hiring rates and found that corporations really put minorities at disadvantages, even with no criminal records.  Throw in a criminal record of just about any kind, and congrats, enjoy minimum wage for the rest of your life.

 

 

I try really hard not to take for granted the fact that I was born white upper middle class.  I can do anything if I put my mind/body to it.  I just wish everyone else could be so lucky.

[Kosher Ham]

Oh my !

 

Buy that man a drink from me.

[twa]

white guilt be eating at ya Dog.

[DogofWar1]

white guilt be eating at ya Dog.

 

No, facts are.

 

Your privilege seems to have been gnawing at you though.

[MrSilverMaC]

white guilt be eating at ya Dog.

That's one of the most horrible posts I've ever read from you.

As a Texan, a republican, and a United States citizen do you not find the infringement of our freedoms and safety by a government body to be one of the most Un-American things you can think of? Perhaps you can help me understand why you seem to be supporting unconstitutional actions by a government body when you purport to be a supporter of limited government and an individual's rights?

I apologize if the question seems a bit dramatic but I am having an impossible time reconciling what you claim to stand for and what you seem to not only be defending but flat out condoning in this thread.

[twa]

That's one of the most horrible posts I've ever read from you.

As a Texan, a republican, and a United States citizen do you not find the infringement of our freedoms and safety by a government body to be one of the most Un-American things you can think of? Perhaps you can help me understand why you seem to be supporting unconstitutional actions by a government body when you purport to be a supporter of limited government and an individual's rights?

I apologize if the question seems a bit dramatic but I am having an impossible time reconciling what you claim to stand for and what you seem to not only be defending but flat out condoning in this thread.

 

It certainly could have been better.

 

nothing unconstitutional about police addressing threats ,w/o that you will find freedom even more limited.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-deadliest-murders-6434512.php

[mcsluggo]

And in cases where they didn't?  What, it's just the cost of doing business?

 

Disgusting.  Utterly disgusting.  It devalues human life to nothing.  We see every week more unarmed people dying.  You can't hand-wave that.

 

"Oh well, unarmed people keep dying?  Eh, whatever, I'm sure a lot of people deserved it."

 

We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!  WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT!

 

You do understand how charges and convictions, for even minor crimes, create a permanent underclass in this country, right?

 

If you're wondering why people turn to crime, or turn to drugs, or have bad acquaintances, you have no further to look than the system that forced them and their ancestors into it, and that keeps perpetuating it, with one of the primary ways of it being done being the police.  You force people into low wage jobs (or unemployment) from which they have no opportunity to escape (except perhaps crime), and some are going to turn out bad.  

 

Congrats, you've just created a situation for people that allows you to justify killing those same people!  Good job.  America, and such!  George Washington must be so proud!

__________________________________________

 

Moreover, you say there are more crazies in the US, but provide no quantitative evidence.  So yes, "may be true" is the appropriate phrase to use, though it's worth noting my use of "that may be true" was actually use in the "X may be true, BUT Y" form, which agrees with X; it doesn't dispute it as, say, saying "That's maybe true."

 

Further, you don't discuss why we kill SO DARN MANY more people in the US than in other countries.  Do we really have 100X the  bad people that other countries do?  Somehow I doubt that.  If you're going to essentially say we've got 100X the bad people of the UK, you should probably back that up with data, or something.

__________________________________________

 

Something else I've been wanting to bring up for a while is how damaging just a charge, not even a conviction, can be.  I wrote a paper on it (hastily, due to the worst end of semester exam schedule ever, but still finished it) and the harm is surprising.  I hadn't really thought about the issue before hand, but I stumbled across some statistics during one of my classes and wanted to investigate more.

 

Police and the prosecutors who work with those police (usually off of police statements) do more damage than they know.

 

There's a powerpoint you can download from here:

http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/backgroundcheckcriminalchecks.aspx

that details a survey of corporations looking into background checks.

 

31% of companies said an arrest record alone was somewhat or very influential in terms of a decision to hire or not.

 

37% of companies do not allow people to explain themselves before a decision on their hiring is made.

 

That's a problematic combination if you've ever been arrested, even without a conviction.

 

Then you add in that lots of background checking services are woefully incomplete/incorrect for a variety of reasons, biggest being a lack of uniformity in reporting standards, often to the accused's detriment, across states.  Report is here, though it's kinda tough to sift through: http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/broken-records-report.pdf

 

Now, admittedly not all these issues are ones that we can lay at the feet of police.  Many of them come from state reporting requirements, or alternatively, the background check companies, and mismatched records with regards to mistaken identity are unfortunate mix-ups not on the police, but outside of mismatches, an arrest (without a conviction) tends to be the starting point of issues.

 

When police arrest someone, it has far reaching consequences for that person's life.  Abuse of the power to arrest through constitutional violations should be inexcusable in the USA.

 

This, for minorities, compounds with the racism, patent and latent, in the corporate world.  Various studies have looked at hiring rates and found that corporations really put minorities at disadvantages, even with no criminal records.  Throw in a criminal record of just about any kind, and congrats, enjoy minimum wage for the rest of your life.

 

 

I try really hard not to take for granted the fact that I was born white upper middle class.  I can do anything if I put my mind/body to it.  I just wish everyone else could be so lucky.

 

well... fortunately those people can apply to police forces, where apparently background checks are less important**

 

 

 

 

(** extrapolated from the number of officers involved in dicey arrests that have previously been fired from other jurisdictions)

[PleaseBlitz]

and the cop can tell by the sign on his forehead or aura?

 

He obviously was odd, the cop probably didn't need to unholster his gun....but probably don't bring ya home at night.

 

Well this nicely sums up one of the problems.  So long as the cop goes home at night, who really cares how many people's rights he violated or (black) people he killed?  Better to shoot first and make 100% sure you get home at night.

Edited August 10, 2015 by PleaseBlitz

[DogofWar1]

nothing unconstitutional about police addressing threats ,w/o that you will find freedom even more limited.

 

Depends how one defines "addressing" and "threats."  With the way you've seemingly been defining them and the loose standards you've applied, there are definitely constitutional violations.

 

And the old "I'll give up a little of my freedom for more security" argument doesn't work here.  First, you've likely never been victimized by police, so it's probably not your freedom you're giving up, it's other peoples'.  Secondly, other nations somehow manage to maintain peace without significant police killings and rights violations.  It's lazy and privileged to accept a status quo where lots of people die and lots of people have their rights violated and lives destroyed when numerous other nations have demonstrated that it's not necessary to do that to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

[mcsluggo]

Well this nicely sums up one of the problems.  So long as the cop goes home at night, who really cares how many people's rights he violated or (black) people he killed?  Better to shoot first and make 100% sure you get home at night.

 

well, it does highlight separate, and sometimes conflicting, objective functions.

 

1)   Officer stay safe and alive

2)   Rights of the citizens are maintained (including the right to stay safe and alive)

3)   Bad guys are caught and punished for doing bad things

 

Plenty of officers want to maximize 1), subject to no constraints.   

the rest of us want to maximize all three, but there is some truth to the fact that this reduces 1)***    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** the truth of this is overstated by lots and lots of overzealous "cop supporters", but the basic truth is still there.  If Cops were ONLY concerned for their own well being, and basically acted like Blackwater in Iraq, and holed up behind barricades and shot anyone who moved--- individually they * might * be safer--- if you ignore the impact of that complete breakdown of law on order would have on EVERYONE, including them

[MrSilverMaC]

It certainly could have been better.

 

nothing unconstitutional about police addressing threats ,w/o that you will find freedom even more limited.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-s-deadliest-murders-6434512.php

 

 

Addressing threats is fine, but address threats. Why is it that our military, who operates in actual war zones, is held to a higher standard with their rules of engagement? Why does a U.S soldier need to treat a foreign citizen in a foreign war zone better than a cop does a U.S citizen on U.S soil? How is that ok with you?

 

Illegal search and seizure is a constitutional violation. Illegal imprisonment is a constitutional violation. Attempting to deny free speech is a constitutional violation. Cops executing citizens, especially when unarmed and posing no threat, and denying due process is a constitutional violation.

 

Does it take white guilt to feel outrage when those things are denied to U.S citizens? As a person of the United States, who states they subscribe to the beliefs of a party that claims to desire limited government and greater personal freedoms, who hails from a state that is supposed to be famous for believing those things how is it that almost every post of yours in this thread is to defend, deflect, and condone the abuses I listed? And even worse, have stated that you don't necessarily mind and possibly deserve it if those things happen to you or your loved ones.

 

We all speak in hyperbole online. It's easy to exaggerate an emotion or belief on here. But the things you've said exceed that. So I asked the question I did. Do you really and truly believe the **** you are typing in this thread or are you just fishing for responses? Do you understand the difference between the things you say you stand for and the things your words show you actually stand for?

 

I'm looking for an actual answer, not a one or two line quip with an article of some guy/woman who did bad. I can drive down the street and find real life evil on my own if I want to.

[twa]

Well this nicely sums up one of the problems.  So long as the cop goes home at night, who really cares how many people's rights he violated or (black) people he killed?  Better to shoot first and make 100% sure you get home at night.

 

no right was violated in that instance.....much like the Brown shooting people jump to extremes w/o fact.

 

 

Depends how one defines "addressing" and "threats."  With the way you've seemingly been defining them and the loose standards you've applied, there are definitely constitutional violations.

 

And the old "I'll give up a little of my freedom for more security" argument doesn't work here.  First, you've likely never been victimized by police, so it's probably not your freedom you're giving up, it's other peoples'.  Secondly, other nations somehow manage to maintain peace without significant police killings and rights violations.  It's lazy and privileged to accept a status quo where lots of people die and lots of people have their rights violated and lives destroyed when numerous other nations have demonstrated that it's not necessary to do that to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

 

It certainly depends.....if ya wanna give specifics we can talk about definitely

 

What is victimized???....I've been stopped,searched, beat down,detained and most certainly had guns drawn on me......almost all of them within the law.

 

ya wanna reduce the deaths it is probably a good idea to reduce confrontation....and the justifiable fear the officers have

 

Numerous nations have different populations and customs....if folk behaved more like them the conflicts would be smaller 

 

There is certainly room for improvement from the police side, but it ain't all them.

[DogofWar1]

It certainly depends.....if ya wanna give specifics we can talk about definitely

 

What is victimized???....I've been stopped,searched, beat down,detained and most certainly had guns drawn on me......almost all of them within the law.

 

ya wanna reduce the deaths it is probably a good idea to reduce confrontation....and the justifiable fear the officers have

 

Numerous nations have different populations and customs....if folk behaved more like them the conflicts would be smaller 

 

There is certainly room for improvement from the police side, but it ain't all them.

 

Well, what were you doing or what was the situation at the time you were searched, beat down, detained, and had guns drawn on you?

 

You may not subjectively feel victimized, but there are defined and clear standards of what police can and can not do and when they are allowed to do it.  You say you've had guns drawn and been beat down; for those to have been within the law, the ACTUAL law (not TWA's law), you have to have been doing something to warrant it.  Speaking of warrants, if you were searched without a warrant, and it didn't fall into an exception, you've been victimized.  You may have had a civil case against the police and didn't even know it.

 

Further, define "confrontation" and "justifiable fear."  Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, which she was completely within her rights to refuse to do.  Is that "confrontation?"  When officers were standing beside Sam Dubose's car and he tries to flee, did they have "justifiable fear" that their lives were in danger to shoot him point blank?  What about in the video a couple pages back?  Is it confrontational to videotape police?  Do police have a justifiable fear for their lives of anyone taping them?

 

I've been sort of dancing around this, but the fallback position of the "pro-irresponsible cop" position tends to be the greater likelihood of guns to exist in the US.  What is your stance on gun control?

 

I also have not, and won't, say that it's purely a police problem.  It's not.  Corporate racism plays a role.  Prosecutors and judges play a role.  Legislatures waging an inane drug war play a role.  Gun availability plays a role.  Crappy worker protections play a role.  Lots of roles played by lots of groups.

 

But police play a huge role, and when we consider how their role intersects with other parts of the problem, their role is very likely the largest.

[twa]

 

 

Further, define "confrontation" and "justifiable fear."  Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, which she was completely within her rights to refuse to do.  Is that "confrontation?"  When officers were standing beside Sam Dubose's car and he tries to flee, did they have "justifiable fear" that their lives were in danger to shoot him point blank?  What about in the video a couple pages back?  Is it confrontational to videotape police?  Do police have a justifiable fear for their lives of anyone taping them?

 

 

 

Bland became a problem when she refused a lawful order to exit the car the focus on the cigarette is just smoke .

you speak like a lawyer....isn't that a lawful order????

 

I don't think I have reviewed or commented on the Dubose shooting being justifiable....I'll have to get back to ya on that.

 

The videotaping where the old guy unhostered his pistol?

 

The officer clearly found him suspicious and his refusal to take his hand out of his pocket can justify simply pulling the gun from the holster.....depends on dept policy if it is actionable.

 

What right was violated in that instance?

 

add

 in all your listed causes there is a glaring omission ....perhaps why I address it

Edited August 10, 2015 by twa

[DogofWar1]

For a police order to be a lawful order, it needs backing.  Police can't just order you to do anything.  What's his reasonable suspicion or probable cause?  Why is she being ordered out of the car?  More than likely it's because she didn't put out her cigarette, seeing as those two things happened back to back, but that's not sufficient for an order to exit a vehicle; not when a stop is for not using a turn signal.

 

Meanwhile, in the video, infringement of liberty without due process of law.  There's no crime happening, nor does the police justify his presence or actions at any point.  A reasonable person isn't going to feel free with an officer having pulled a gun.

 

Police NEED reasonable suspicion and probable cause to take certain actions.  That's not a guideline, or, at least it's not supposed to be.

 

Also worth noting, the guy did show both hands (though he was not legally required to), look around the 2:24 mark, both hands are out (left is pointing, right is holding camera).  The officer doesn't re-holster his gun.  Let us briefly pretend your unsupported-by-law standard controls here; once both hands are out, what justification does the officer have for having his gun out?

[twa]

For a police order to be a lawful order, it needs backing.  Police can't just order you to do anything.  What's his reasonable suspicion or probable cause?  Why is she being ordered out of the car?  More than likely it's because she didn't put out her cigarette, seeing as those two things happened back to back, but that's not sufficient for an order to exit a vehicle; not when a stop is for not using a turn signal.

 

Meanwhile, in the video, infringement of liberty without due process of law.  There's no crime happening, nor does the police justify his presence or actions at any point.  A reasonable person isn't going to feel free with an officer having pulled a gun.

 

Police NEED reasonable suspicion and probable cause to take certain actions.  That's not a guideline, or, at least it's not supposed to be.

 

Also worth noting, the guy did show both hands (though he was not legally required to), look around the 2:24 mark, both hands are out (left is pointing, right is holding camera).  The officer doesn't re-holster his gun.  Let us briefly pretend your unsupported-by-law standard controls here; once both hands are out, what justification does the officer have for having his gun out?

 

The police in a lawful traffic stop are fully within their power to order you out of the vehicle, you may of course second guess or complain in the appropriate manner.....but ya better get out 

 

If he feels it was infringement of liberty he is free to file charges or suit, the officer is free to have a weapon in his hand.

 

Why keep your gun out around someone you just asked were they nuts?.....are you nuts?

 

add

 are you suggesting the officer was under some obligation not to interact with someone in public? 

I could do everything he did except possibly brandish a gun(ya might even get away with that as a civilian)

Edited August 11, 2015 by twa

[Kosher Ham]

I pay for Serve and Protect, not Harass and Neglect.  

[twa]

I pay for Serve and Protect, not Harass and Neglect.  

 

file a complaint, I understand politicians love them.......reminding them they are public servants usually helps 

[Kosher Ham]

file a complaint, I understand politicians love them.......reminding them they are public servants usually helps 

 

Fortunately in my situation, I only worry about speed traps. Heavy foot sometimes.

 

Otherwise, police here don't typically ignore what we are paying for.

[Fred Jones]

The cigarette got me.  Let me just go ahead and give you cancer.  Why not.  You don't seem to care that officers asked a citizen to put out a cigarette, for various reasons, but I am simply focusing on the cancer causing one.  I would not want someone to smoke in front of me, force me to breath in a cancer causing substance.  So, just go ahead and get some cancer, because you don't seem to care.

 

Moving on, what the heck is search and seizure, rights infringed, victimized?

 

Is that your opinion that cops violated one of those things?  Did you feel that you were being disrespected or that you didn't feel like paying respect to the law?

 

Do you know what the law says on traffic stops as opposed to simple pedestrian stops on the street?  Reading my law for dummies book, there is a difference.

 

Someone above said that in order for a police order to be lawful, it needs backing.  What does that mean?  Does that mean probable cause? Does that mean reasonable suspicion?  What is the difference between the two?  If a cop believes, through knowledge and experience, that a crime is afoot, should they just stand by and let it happen?

 

Now, or course police can't just order you to do anything, but what exactly constitutes reasonably suspicion or probably cause?  I could quote out of my law for dummies book, but I bet a standard citizen doesn't know the difference.

 

To the gun comment.  Law abiding cop can't have his gun out?  Leaving the fact that the NRA would have something to say about that, I didn't know that people can now read minds.  I guess cops can because, according to some people, they know exactly what someone they just encountered is going to do.  They seem to be able to predict their actions, predict future events.

 

Someone talked about the abuse of power and how arrests by cops leads to failing a background check which leads to not getting hired.  I will simply take this approach.  Who made you judge?  It is not the job of the cop to play judge.  So, who should he not arrest and who should he arrest?  I understand that certain circumstances do dictate situations where you would not make an arrest, but for all the other times when someone is breaking the law, do you give a break on Sunday or only to people that are nice to the police?  Who sets the standards?  What exactly is fair?

 

Lastly, Sovereign Citizens are whack jobs, plain and simple.  If you feel strongly against my comment, leave the U.S., form your own country and do what you feel like.  And, if you don't like it, don't call 911 and bother the cops that, apparently, violate your rights.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Fred Jones

[Fred Jones]

Moving on to traffic tickets.  I find it funny when politicians pressure police departments to "keep everyone safe" and write more tickets, disregarding the fact that more tickets mean more revenue.  Why do the people complain about tickets when they vote in the politicians that pressure the cops to write more tickets because their community needs more revenue to keep the taxes lower.

 

But, that is just my impression as a tax paying citizen.

[Gamebreaker]

If that cop was law abiding when he pulled his gun out for no apparent reason, than why was he suspended? 

 

And again, with the don't call 911 because you actually want cops to do their jobs. If there are Police officers who actually think citizens should not call 911 if they are critical of how police do their jobs, please do us all a favor and quit. You are too wrapped up in being the law, instead of upholding the law...and you serve no purpose but to further create a rift between police and the people they serve. 

[twa]

If that cop was law abiding when he pulled his gun out for no apparent reason, than why was he suspended? 

 

 

he was put on administrative leave, not suspension.....common with any use of weapons complaint.

 

it was not a disciplinary action

[visionary]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery_55c92866e4b0f1cbf1e61822?tgvcayvi

Washington Post Reporter Wesley Lowery Charged For Doing Journalism In Ferguson

Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery has been charged with trespassing and interfering with a police officer’s performance, a chilling setback for press freedom coming nearly a year after he was arrested in Ferguson, Missouri.

 

Lowery was arrested on Aug. 13, 2014, along with The Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly, just four days after white police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

 

Reilly, who had not received any notification as of Monday evening, will reportedly face the same charges. Cordell Whitlock, a spokesman for the St. Louis County executive, declined a request for comment.

 

The journalists were working out of a McDonald's when members of a SWAT team entered and ordered them to leave. Lowery and Reilly were quickly released and not charged with any crime.

Lowery has been ordered to appear on Aug. 24 in a St. Louis County municipal court, according to the Post, which first reported on the charges.

 

The decision to charge Lowery is especially surprising, given that St. Louis County settled just last week with two other journalists arrested while reporting in Ferguson.

 

And until recently, Lowery and Reilly believed their incidents with police were long over with. The Huffington Post reported last month that the St. Louis County Police Department filed incident reports in late April describing the two reporters as trespassing in the McDonald's. Police referred their cases to the St. Louis County counselor's office, which, given a one-year statute of limitations, had until Thursday to bring charges.

 

A trespassing conviction can result in up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Edited August 11, 2015 by visionary