KiDisaster Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Old thread has been locked. Another unarmed black man killed by police officers, this time in LA. Ezell Ford was killed during an "investigative stop". According to his mother, he was mentally challenged and was laying on the ground cooperating with officers when he was shot in the back. Officers claim that there was a struggle, and that Ford went for one of the officers' gun. No video, so we'll have to wait for more information to come out I suppose. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-lapd-shooting-death-20140813-story.html - Initial article http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-explains-officer-shooting-20140813-story.html - Police response ETA: It has not been confirmed whether he was armed or not, that was my mistake I misread the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Posted 10 August 2014 - 07:13 PM How to get away with murder in the 21st century: "He was going for my gun." Like I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Solid KCRW piece on the topic. Highly armed paramilitary units and SWAT teams are on the rise in American law enforcement - that’s according to a new study from the ACLU that claims these teams are increasingly being deployed in situations that don’t require military firepower like grenades and sniper rifles. The practice raises questions about where to draw the line between soldier and cop, and sometimes causes peaceful situations to spiral into violence, or even deaths. Is one person's militarization another's preparation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 The police really need to reign it in, or they are probably gonna get in a great deal more violent conflicts, and some of them they are going to end up on the worse end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 From the other thread, when the police become militarized they go from protecting and serving to fighting enemies, where the enemies are the civilian population. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMIES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I don't think regular police should have guns, but obviously in a society were you're legally allowed to carry guns around it's necessary to have police with guns. So, either tighten up the regulations and penalties so shit like this doesn't happen, or just get rid of guns altogether and the police will just need batons. Is it that simple? That will never happen (although it should). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Someone start a gun hate thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Flashheart Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Someone start a gun hate thread...Yeah that hasn't been discussed to death yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 I hate slingshots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Ayras Lord Commander Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Yeah that hasn't been discussed to death yet. Haha I see what you did there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 This report found that a black person (mostly males) by police, security guards or vigilantes. The information was collected by an organization that very much has a political agenda, however they detail their methodology, name (and give information for, location, age etc) all 313 black people killed extrajudicially in 2012 so the information can be verified, so I thought the information was likely accurate, and of course there is one very famous case in there. The report also points out (and I find this quite credible) that they only include those that they can prove were both killed extrajudicially and were black, since PDs are not required to provide this information (about extrajudicial killings) it can be difficult to come by, so the real number is likely higher.http://mxgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Operation-Ghetto-Storm.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I don't think regular police should have guns, but obviously in a society were you're legally allowed to carry guns around it's necessary to have police with guns. So, either tighten up the regulations and penalties so shit like this doesn't happen, or just get rid of guns altogether and the police will just need batons. Is it that simple?I dont think the regular police need guns either, even with our well armed populace. They are the first step in the scariest criminal justice system in the Western world. They don't need them. I bet that the bulk of police that pull the trigger on a citizen, and the bulk of citizens that shoot cops, do so out of fear or knowledge that the other one is armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Read an article on Vox about the militarization of the police here in the States. It was initially a response to the wave of crime in the 80's that was a result of drugs. And then again after 9/11 under the assumption that the police were going to have to start battling terrorist sleeper cells. Neither of which materialized as the crime rate dropped. The other interesting thing is that all this military gear that was given to police departments came with the caveat that they had to be used within a year of receiving said equipment. They didn't say what would happen if it wasn't used within the year, but I'm assuming they would have to give it back. So instead of waiting for some shooter situation to materialize, the departments simply started using them for delivering warrants and such. I wonder if the one year provision was put in place in good faith or whether it was included with the intention to push these departments to become more militarized? Just being cynical, but I really hope it's the former. ETA:http://www.vox.com/2014/8/16/6022873/one-sentence-that-explains-why-local-police-don-t-need-military Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 So this happened last year, but is gaining some attention now after a lawsuit has been filed. A cop t-boned this woman and seriously injured her, as in broke her neck. He was completely in the wrong, as video showed: he just straight up ran a stop sign. His department knew this, as they had the video. And yet, they still charged the victim with DUI despite her injuries being too severe to perform a field sobriety test. No, they charged her with a DUI because she admitted to having a few sips of a friends drink earlier that night and because her eyes were red, which definitely was not because she was crying because of her broken freaking neck. Even though blood tests would later prove she had no alcohol in her system they continued pushing that case for almost a year. Just a few bad apples is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talleyrand Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 ... That's not just corruption its idiocy. Trying to sweep it under the rug in the hopes that the driver just accepted it and moved on would be vile enough but what breed of idiocy does it take to think that someone would just sit there and take having their neck broken and being blamed for it when you're so clearly in the wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 So this happened last year, but is gaining some attention now after a lawsuit has been filed. A cop t-boned this woman and seriously injured her, as in broke her neck. He was completely in the wrong, as video showed: he just straight up ran a stop sign. His department knew this, as they had the video. And yet, they still charged the victim with DUI despite her injuries being too severe to perform a field sobriety test. No, they charged her with a DUI because she admitted to having a few sips of a friends drink earlier that night and because her eyes were red, which definitely was not because she was crying because of her broken freaking neck. Even though blood tests would later prove she had no alcohol in her system they continued pushing that case for almost a year. Just a few bad apples is all. My question is where are all these supposed 'good cops' that don't do this kind of stuff? We're seeing entire precincts of corruption, yet it's only 'a few bad apples'? This is why people don't think there are good cops, and why many are more afraid of cops than criminals. At least with criminals I can typically avoid those situations, cops are everywhere and if they want to engage you they will... with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 http://fox2now.com/2014/08/14/despite-reports-swat-team-helped-al-jazeera-reporters-did-not-take-their-equipment/ Don't worry the cops are actually here to help! Make sure you thank them when they give you a generous helping of tear gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Reposting this from another thread as this one is more related to the police state in general. Credit to Aceluby for pointing it out. http://theantimedia.org/constitutional-rights-essentially-suspended-in-ferguson-as-police-raid-homes-door-to-door/ I'm reminded of the scene from Game of Thrones where Ned confronts Cersei in the throne room where he tries to use the rule of law, Robert's last will, to depose her. To which she laughs and tears the paper up. We all know what happened after that... Replace Robert's will with the Constitution. "This is what you brought? A piece of paper?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 It's always seemed to me that the Constitution is just a suggestion. My grandmother went to court for entertainment and took me a lot. From what I've seen in courtrooms, the constitution doesn't reign supreme.It does seem to become more important if it's a case that has a lot of public attention, then constitutional rights are paid attention to.Also seems smaller town courtrooms get away with denial of rights more than in a bigger city courtroom.Of course, all this is my anecdotal report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davos OnionKing Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 It's always seemed to me that the Constitution is just a suggestion. My grandmother went to court for entertainment and took me a lot. From what I've seen in courtrooms, the constitution doesn't reign supreme.It does seem to become more important if it's a case that has a lot of public attention, then constitutional rights are paid attention to. It's quite a dystopian worldview you have there, but I'm starting to agree with it. The constitution only holds sway as long as there is the will to abide by and enforce it. Seems we are drifting further away from it every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.