Jump to content

Police killed at Dallas protest


DunderMifflin

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why does the same logic not apply when I tell Bob to stop walking toward me or I will shoot?

It does.  You are free to claim self defense when you shoot Bob, and explain why you believed your life was threatened, the same reasonable belief standard will be applied to you when the police decide to arrest you or not, when the prosecutor decides to prosecute you or not and when the jury decides to convict you or not.  If you can convince police that you had reason to believe Bob was armed and going to kill you, you might very well get off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But in all of these cases police believe that the person is reaching for a weapon, in the Noble case he appears to have something in his hand, what is unreasonable about police concluding it's a gun, when they were answering a call about someone with a gun, and when he refuses to comply with the easy commands to stop moving and put his hands up?  

 

No, the police claim that they believed the person is reaching for a weapon.  We see more and more evidence that the police excuse of 'I feared for my life" is bs.  As for answering the call about a gun, there have been a few national stories about completely wrong information about a person with a gun being called in.  And I have no doubt that there are more "wrong" call ins that we don't hear about.  A reasonable police would realize that, and evaluate the situation themselves when they arrive.

My opinion is that in general, police believe their lives are worth more than the public.  That is the core problem.  They are not sworn to protect and serve.  And too many do not protect and serve anyone but themselves and other police.  Growing up in the 70s, on my short dead end street, there were three city cops, and two sheriffs.  With the exception of one sheriff, the rest were not good people.  And this was the 70s.

More recently, out to dinner with my husband, a table of off duty local cops were there.  Drinking, eating having a good time.  And loudly telling stories about tasing homeless people to see what would happen.  No shame.  No hiding it.  They acted like it was funny.  I found it horrifying to the point we asked for our food to be wrapped up to go, simply because I couldn't sit there any longer without saying something to them.  If I did, I have no doubt that I would have been retaliated against.

As a white, middle class, law abiding woman, I fear the police, and will go out of my way to avoid them.  I can't even begin to imagine how I would feel if I was a different color, poor, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

It does.  You are free to claim self defense when you shoot Bob, and explain why you believed your life was threatened, the same reasonable belief standard will be applied to you when the police decide to arrest you or not, when the prosecutor decides to prosecute you or not and when the jury decides to convict you or not.  If you can convince police that you had reason to believe Bob was armed and going to kill you, you might very well get off.

With the same degree of deference granted to law enforcement when they kill someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maya mia,

My opinion is that in general, police believe their lives are worth more than the public.  That is the core problem.  They are not sworn to protect and serve.  And too many do not protect and serve anyone but themselves and other police.  Growing up in the 70s, on my short dead end street, there were three city cops, and two sheriffs.  With the exception of one sheriff, the rest were not good people.  And this was the 70s.

 

Exactly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

Are you saying that "a lot" of "criminals" are apprehended because they have been shot by police? Or are you suggesting that "criminals" will simply stroll away into the sunset because they wont be afraid of police? 

I'm suggesting that the entire tenor of policing will change from actively attempting to capture suspects in the course of committing a crime to after the fact investigation, policing will become almost wholly non confrontational....because it is not realistic to think that police will continue the same type of policing--chasing down suspects, rushing in when there are calls about guns and gunfire, demanding that suspects drop their weapons and put their hands up--if they have to wait to be attacked before taking action.  It would surely result in fewer police killings, but I would suggest it would result in higher crime overall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

With the same degree of deference granted to law enforcement when they kill someone?

LOL.  No.  Because you are a private citizen.  Thus, Bob can tell you to fuck off if you try to pull him over for speeding, tell him to move his car that is illegally parked or ask for his ID when he walks out of a bar or tell him to get out of the street.  You, the private citizen aren't legally empowered to do any of these things, and nobody is call you to respond to 911 calls,  but the police are.  Which is why they are given more deference when they make these types of decisions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

LOL.  No.  Because you are a private citizen.  Thus, Bob can tell you to fuck off if you try to pull him over for speeding, tell him to move his car that is illegally parked or ask for his ID when he walks out of a bar or tell him to get out of the street.  You, the private citizen aren't legally empowered to do any of these things, and nobody is call you to respond to 911 calls,  but the police are.  Which is why they are given more deference when they make these types of decisions.  

If I'm out walking and a police officer randomly tells me to stop without justification... I have to stop, on what basis does this authority derive?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If I'm out walking and a police officer randomly tells me to stop without justification... I have to stop, on what basis does this authority derive?  

I think the legal basis is that you have to follow a 'lawful order' from police because they're empowered to enforce the laws, LOL.

However, whether it's actually lawful or not would be something decided after the fact.  So you would have to use your own judgment in whether or not to comply, but if you refused to follow the police order you would be risking arrest, which may or not turn out to be lawful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If I'm out walking and a police officer randomly tells me to stop without justification... I have to stop, on what basis does this authority derive?  

What if you are a visitor from another country and don't understand the language? Too Bad???  Killing time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cas,

Oh, I would comply I don't want to be shot.  I'm simply drilling down to the fundamental question of why we have to comply.  That is because we don't want to be shot.  Not because I know a law enforcement officer wouldn't tell me to stop without good cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Cas,

Oh, I would comply I don't want to be shot.  I'm simply drilling down to the fundamental question of why we have to comply.  That is because we don't want to be shot.  Not because I know a law enforcement officer wouldn't tell me to stop without good cause.

I think you comply because you don't want to be arrested.  Getting shot, despite the publicity, is really quite rare.  1000 people a year, given the millions of guns in the US and the millions of police encounters is not really that excessive, and when you look at those, most of them involve a suspect who did have a gun and was a threat.  Wrongful arrests for mouthing off almost surely are much much more common.

But, you don't always have to comply.  I would never voluntarily agree to allow police to search my car or my house.  It's true, that if I encountered a 'bad' cop and I refused to allow a voluntary search, especially of my car, he could arrest me and search anyway, that would be a tough call that would really depend on the specific demeanor of the specific officer. What I would never do is start ranting to any police officer and become aggressive and argumentative, because that will almost surely get me arrested even if the charges are false and dropped...the damage is done...I've been arrested, humiliated and put at the mercy of the system, and this hurts me a lot more than it hurts the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Brandon Stark said:

Go lecture the BLM sniper. I abhor violence, but we make too many excuses for the criminals and expect policy to be on a pedistal that we all know they can't achieve.

Actually, not executing a guy at point blank range with two cops sitting on top of him is a pretty low pedestal that i would hope our police could achieve.

If they can't then we are all pretty fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because at that point you know you are dealing with a line-crosser at the very least. That sort of officer is going to take liberties more often than not. 

you're making some pretty significant leaps there.

It's important to call out police when they are crossing the line.

But it's equally important to have some perspective on the scale of the problem.

Scot's notion that the only reason we comply is because we don't want to be shot is absurd on it's face.  people comply for all sorts of reasons.  I doubt very much that any significant number of people who comply with unlawful orders are using 'I don't want to get shot' as their reason.  And if they are, they are being irrational.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Why is that scary?

An officer approaches you and orders you to comply with something that you know isn't a legal order.  You can refuse and risk getting arrested, having a long court battle that you might lose, the possibility of continued harassment from the police, and several other potential repercussions, or you can comply with an illegal order and essentially abrogate your rights.  And that's not scary to you?

Yes, the likelihood that you'll be shot is low.  The likelihood that you'll suffer repercussions for not complying with illegal orders is very, very high.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

you're making some pretty significant leaps there.

It's important to call out police when they are crossing the line.

But it's equally important to have some perspective on the scale of the problem.

Scot's notion that the only reason we comply is because we don't want to be shot is absurd on it's face.  people comply for all sorts of reasons.  I doubt very much that any significant number of people who comply with unlawful orders are using 'I don't want to get shot' as their reason.  And if they are, they are being irrational.

 Eh, I don't think that's a leap. If an officer gives you an order that you know is illegal, I'm going to assume that he/she knows it's illegal as well. In my experience, calling them out on that is not really a good move, especially if they are the only officer involved in the exchange. "I know my rights" is typically going to be taken as an escalation. A simple refusal is often a better option. "Yeah, I'm not going to do that". Or perhaps even better "I'm not comfortable complying with that order".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Eh, I don't think that's a leap. If an officer gives you an order that you know is illegal, I'm going to assume that he/she knows it's illegal as well. In my experience, calling them out on that is not really a good move, especially if they are the only officer involved in the exchange. "I know my rights" is typically going to be taken as an escalation. A simple refusal is often a better option. "Yeah, I'm not going to do that". Or perhaps even better "I'm not comfortable complying to that order".

And a simple refusal will result in an additional charge of resisting arrest without violence.  It has happened.  It held up in court. Check out the case from Hialeah, FL.  A person was given an unlawful order by the police.  After appeals etc, the courts determined that even though the order was unlawful, he was still wrong as police cannot be expected to know the laws. This is a bit of a simplification, but this was the essence of it.

While I don't really believe that the police will shoot me, I do completely believe they will make my life a living hell through retaliation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...