Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[PleaseBlitz]

Actually, no it is not.

 

Don't break the law.  Respect your fellow citizens.  Treat others as you would want to be treated.

 

Sure it is.  Blame the victim.  They did something wrong, therefore they deserved whatever happened to them.  THEY PROVOKED THE RESPONSE.

 

And you could apply your second line to the police as well, you know.  Unless you truly feel that they are above the law. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by PleaseBlitz

[Fred Jones]

Sure it is.  Blame the victim.  They did something wrong, therefore they deserved whatever happened to them.  THEY PROVOKED THE RESPONSE.

 

And you could apply your second line to the police as well, you know.  Unless you truly feel that they are above the law. 

 

I did not blame the victim, you did.  I just did not blame the cop 100 percent.

 

Your comment "They provoked the Response"  that in itself  will take pages of threads to respond.  So, let's use your rape case.  Cops arrive and say your wife or sister is getting raped.  I would take your response to say that cops need to wait until lots of them arrive, maybe some SWAT team or something, and then take action.  Would not want to provoke the person raping your wife or sister.

As far as this case, the cop should have not gone in and confronted the person directly, but that does not discount that the person or criminal in this case, acted in a criminal manner and was clearly wrong in what he was doing.

 

Cops are not above the law, but you imply that every citizen is above reproach, is allowed to act and do whatever they want and not be held to some type of accountability for their actions.  I am not saying that they should be shot just for doing something, but to say that they are not 100 percent liable or responsible is to take the victim argument.  Your actions have consequences.

 

All that said, I do not disagree that corruption exists, whole departments need to better themselves and cops need to do a better job overall.  But so does everyone else.

 

Edit:  I will add, to my rape example, where exactly is the line drawn?  In that case you want the cops to take immediate action.  Burglary happening with property being destroyed, might or might not seem like a case.  How did the cops know someone from the dealership was not inside the business?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Fred Jones

[Larry]

Whether the cop was wrong or not, and I can see the paragraphs being generated now, but what about the guy who was burglarizing the dealership.  He put himself in a situation that could result in a confrontation with the cops.  If he had not decided to break in and destroy vehicles that this dealership now has pay for (please, do you think the insurance company won't raise the rates after this).  The dealership, like any other business, has to expend time and resources to fix this criminal activity.  That would piss me off if I was a small business owner.

Ah, the old "who cares if he was shot while unarmed? He was vandalizing property! And if he wouldn't have done that, then it's less likely that he gets shot while unarmed."

Because, after all, the important question isn't "did the person who pulled the trigger on his gun have a valid reason for killing someone?" It's "did the person who got shot do anything wrong?" 

[Fred Jones]

Because, after all, the important question isn't "did the person who pulled the trigger on his gun have a valid reason for killing someone?" It's "did the person who got shot do anything wrong?" 

 

Define wrong?  So easy to sit here a blame that cop.  So easy to discount the criminal's actions.  But, not going to continue because it is clear that many in this thread only see what they want to see.  I see a cop that messed up, got fired and might get prosecuted for his actions.  But I also see a criminal that put himself in a situation that ended up causing a confrontation.  What, the criminal couldn't just run away when the cops arrived? 

[PleaseBlitz]

"I did not blame the victim, you did.  I just did not blame the cop 100 percent."

 

Ah, the classic, NUH-UH YOU DID response.  LOL.  Nowhere have I blamed any victims.  Good try though.  

 

Your comment "They provoked the Response"  that in itself  will take pages of threads to respond.  So, let's use your rape case.  Cops arrive and say your wife or sister is getting raped.  I would take your response to say that cops need to wait until lots of them arrive, maybe some SWAT team or something, and then take action.  Would not want to provoke the person raping your wife or sister.

 

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  In your scenario, the sister obviously provoked the rape and the rapist provoked the cops to arrive.  The provocations have already happened in both cases. Your scenario requires the response to the second provocation to be waiting for something else to happen (except in every other post of yours, the provocations should result in at least one persons violent death).  NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

 

 

As far as this case, the cop should have not gone in and confronted the person directly, but that does not discount that the person or criminal in this case, acted in a criminal manner and was clearly wrong in what he was doing.

 

****, how do you even get the easy ones wrong. In this case, the cop SHOULD HAVE GONE IN AND CONFRONTED THE PERSON (and stopped the rape), but not necessarily killed the guy.

 

Cops are not above the law, but you imply that every citizen is above reproach, is allowed to act and do whatever they want and not be held to some type of accountability for their actions.  I am not saying that they should be shot just for doing something, but to say that they are not 100 percent liable or responsible is to take the victim argument.  Your actions have consequences.

 

I never implied anything of the sort. Show me where. Use quotes please.  Yes, actions have consequences, those consequences do not need to include death by gunfire in all cases.

 

All that said, I do not disagree that corruption exists, whole departments need to better themselves and cops need to do a better job overall.  But so does everyone else.

 

I have no idea how you turned a corner to corruption.  Police brutality and corruption may go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing.  

 

Edit:  I will add, to my rape example, where exactly is the line drawn?  In that case you want the cops to take immediate action.  Burglary happening with property being destroyed, might or might not seem like a case.  How did the cops know someone from the dealership was not inside the business?

 

As I stated above, yes, you want the cop to take immediate action.  The choice is not between 1) DO NOTHING and 2) KILL EVERY MOTHER****ER IN THE ROOM.  

Edited August 12, 2015 by PleaseBlitz

[twa]

Ah, the old "who cares if he was shot while unarmed? He was vandalizing property! And if he wouldn't have done that, then it's less likely that he gets shot while unarmed."

Because, after all, the important question isn't "did the person who pulled the trigger on his gun have a valid reason for killing someone?" It's "did the person who got shot do anything wrong?" 

 

You do not need to be armed to be shot, nor did the cop know he was not armed.

The question is indeed did he need killing, both parties have a hand in that situation....one party instigated the encounter, the other was there by duty

Edited August 12, 2015 by twa

[Larry]

You do not need to be armed to be shot, nor did the cop know he was not armed.

Ah, the old "well, he wasn't proven unarmed" line.

 

And I'm well aware that you don't have to be armed to be shot.  That's kinda the purpose of this thread. 

 

 

Well, he shoulda armed himself. 

[twa]

a old but proven line.

 

you know what they say about assuming unarmed?

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/data-on-police-killings-bucks-media-narrative/

[Major Harris]

This is essentially the classic rape argument. "I'm not saying the dude wasn't wrong for raping her, but c'mon, she was asking for it."

Also employed by Stephen A. Smith to defend Ray Rice for knocking his wife out.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/espn-suspends-stephen-a--smith-over-ray-rice-domestic-abuse-commentary-213719386.html

Also used by Chris Rock

https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8

[Larry]

So, your point is that only 1 out of 5 people who get killed by cops were unarmed?

(And you're happy with this?).

Me, I would have thought it would be somewhere between 1 in 20, and 1 in 100.

[twa]

So, your point is that only 1 out of 5 people who get killed by cops were unarmed?

(And you're happy with this?).

Me, I would have thought it would be somewhere between 1 in 20, and 1 in 100.

 

again....unarmed is not the criteria......do they probably need killing is

 

do you have the stats on the number of those killed by cops that were unjustifiable?

[Larry]

again....unarmed is not the criteria......do they probably need killing is

 

You see, right there might be where our different opinions on the subject are. I think that's at least the second time you've thrown that tough guy catch phrase out there.

And you see, MY criteria is "did that person demonstrate a clear, imminent threat, of death or serious bodily harm, to the officer or to another?"

(Guess what? "Well, the cop didn't KNOW he was unarmed" isn't it.)

[Fred Jones]

If you believe this :"did that person demonstrate a clear, imminent threat, of death or serious bodily harm, to the officer or to another?"

 

Meaning, if the set of circumstances led you to believe this, could a cop shoot someone

[Gamebreaker]

I know that police are rarely criminally charged with on duty shootings.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955

Geez, no wonder so many of these bad police officers are killing people. There aren't any real consequences to being caught guilty. Unless there is independent video, they're getting away with it. I'd they do get caught, for a long time the likely consequence is they're fired. In which they'll just apply for another department in another county and get back to breaking laws anyway.

[twa]

You see, right there might be where our different opinions on the subject are. I think that's at least the second time you've thrown that tough guy catch phrase out there.

And you see, MY criteria is "did that person demonstrate a clear, imminent threat, of death or serious bodily harm, to the officer or to another?"

(Guess what? "Well, the cop didn't KNOW he was unarmed" isn't it.)

 

your criteria is higher than the law....clear rarely is, nor are you required to risk yourself to reach that point.

 

the level of clarity does impact whether you will be charged and tried though

 

and is basically did they need killing

[Gamebreaker]

I think there is an issue in this discussion where when there is a police shooting and people feel like they have to choose which side, cop or victim, is more at fault. These men were both adults, the guilt of their actions is their own and no one else's.

The perp in this case is 100% guilty of vandalism and destruction of property. The ex-cop is 100% guilty of murder in whatever degree. The guilt of one, doesn't absolve the guilt of the other. So there really isn't any point in highlighting the dead guy's bad decisions, because they in no way reduce the ex-cop from being 100% guilty.

[Fred Jones]

TWA, I am out.

 

The judgement is too much for me.

[twa]

I think there is an issue in this discussion where when there is a police shooting and people feel like they have to choose which side, cop or victim, is more at fault. These men were both adults, the guilt of their actions is their own and no one else's.

The perp in this case is 100% guilty of vandalism and destruction of property. The ex-cop is 100% guilty of murder in whatever degree. The guilt of one, doesn't absolve the guilt of the other. So there really isn't any point in highlighting the dead guy's bad decisions, because they in no way reduce the ex-cop from being 100% guilty.

 

pure horse****

He is guilty when convicted or that facts prove it, and the criminal fools actions influence the cops action.

 

there is a issue when folk rush to judgement.

 

add

the 1st paragraph was pretty good

Edited August 13, 2015 by twa

[DogofWar1]

your criteria is higher than the law....clear rarely is, nor are you required to risk yourself to reach that point.

the level of clarity does impact whether you will be charged and tried though

and is basically did they need killing

 

One problem that pops up is that the exact criteria differs from state to state.

 

However, there's something of a floor that has been set by the Supreme Court that force be objectively reasonable.  Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).  Generally, states tend to differ on what's "objectively reasonable," usually based on what specific felonies are sufficiently heinous enough 

 

This is a pretty good rundown of California law, but it also hits on more common law in the 9th Circuit and some Constitutional principles: http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/140#cont159

 

Of course California may be different from other states, that is to say, Larry's standard and TWA's standard may both be fairly close to specific states.  Larry's standard is pretty close to California's, in that either an atrocious and heinous crime needs to be ongoing or imminent (burglary is not a part of that, btw), or an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is present for the officer.

 

Texas law (some statutes here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) goes pretty close to Larry's too.  Subchapter E covers law enforcement.  The relevant part is:

 

© A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.

 

So Larry is actually pretty close.  Generally for deadly force, there are a certain set of felonies which either have, are being, or will be committed for which deadly force used to prevent/end those crimes is reasonable, and in self-defense of very near in time seriously bodily injury or death.  Which specific felonies allow deadly force vary and case law in individual states might creates rubs elsewhere.

[Gamebreaker]

pure horse****

He is guilty when convicted or that facts prove it, and the criminal fools actions influence the cops action.

 

there is a issue when folk rush to judgement.

 

add

the 1st paragraph was pretty good

 

I wonder, do you extend the same "innocent until proven guilty" mentality to the shooting victim? So far, you haven't shown to give him the same constitutional rights you wish the cop to have. 

[twa]

I wonder, do you extend the same "innocent until proven guilty" mentality to the shooting victim? So far, you haven't shown to give him the same constitutional rights you wish the cop to have. 

 

the 'victim' was engaged in felonious activity(indisputably)which lessens his rights, the cop was in a place he had every legal right to be at AND the duty to engage (despite apparently violating local protocol)

 

I grant him the benefit of doubt the cop shot him w/o sufficient justification, just as I grant the cop benefit of doubt

 

one is beyond judging more than his legacy, the other is far from 100% guilty of murder at this point

 

 

 

 

So Larry is actually pretty close.  Generally for deadly force, there are a certain set of felonies which either have, are being, or will be committed for which deadly force used to prevent/end those crimes is reasonable, and in self-defense of very near in time seriously bodily injury or death.  Which specific felonies allow deadly force vary and case law in individual states might creates rubs elsewhere.

 

Larry is pretty close, but objectively reasonable differs from clearly

 

the main variant in law is whether you have to look thru the shooters eyes or a neutral observers to judge reasonable

 

What is Texas law on protecting property at night(even if it is not your own) ?

 

it might make try the beal smile 

 

add

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42

Edited August 13, 2015 by twa

[Kosher Ham]

He still has rights, regardless of his crime.

[PokerPacker]

He still has rights, regardless of his crime.

I was originally just gonna post a picture of McBain and make up a line for him: You have the right to remain silent. Dead silent.

Turned out he already had a movie title eerily close.

[twa]

He still has rights, regardless of his crime.

 

certainly, though not the right to be where he was or doing what he was or even the expectation or right he would not get shot while doing so

 

he crossed many lines including property ones

[Larry]

certainly, though not the right to be where he was or doing what he was or even the expectation or right he would not get shot while doing so

And you were doing so good, there, until you got to your assertion that American citizens don't have the right to expect not to get shot for vandalism.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Larry