Jump to content

Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

She’s screaming ‘don’t cuff her don’t cuff her’ Which is clearly making the girl terrified of being cuffed. The officers are asking the mother to stop yelling so she’s hardly being reasonable and calm is she. She is far from being helpful in the situation.

I’m arguing the actions seemed reasonable given the situation, nobody got hurt and the officers were calm and professional. This is different to other cases I’ve seen 

She's yelling not to cuff her because she's a god damned child who did nothing .  Are you completely missing that point or do you simply not care because you think pig cops can do whatever they want.  You're deciding that a terrified child and mother who have not received specialized training in dealing with situations where they have guns pointing at them should have known more how to react in a horrifically terrifying situation.  People like you are part of the problem.  

Somebody was hurt.  An 11 year old child was clearly hurt.  She says as much in interviews.  I don't know what other cases you are comparing this to.  She wasn't murdered like some children have been, true, but unless you want to claim that mental injury isn't real, she was clearly hurt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

And if she runs away carrying evidence? Or if she is actually carrying a weapon on her? In a situation where there are so many unknowns I see no problem in officers taking reasonable precautions.

By this logic almost any abuse of civil rights can be justified based upon “possibilities”.  The warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment for searches and arrests should not be treated as suggestions.

For the third time what is your opinion of the officers’ actions in the Daniel Shiver shooting:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/12/10/daniel-shaver-philip-brailsford-shooting-bodycam-video-sandoval-pkg-newday-new.cnn

If this is justified what actions aren’t justified by “officer safety”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about people who argue that cops are justified due to perceived officer safety is that they don't care about public safety or even officer safety.  All they care about is the perception that the cops be treated as though they are above reproach.  The police can do anything - murder a child playing at a park, murder a drunk man sobbing on the floor, handcuff a child for standing on her front porch - and any criticism of this is considered worse than the actual actions of the police because those sorts are more about perception than anything else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eggegg clearly just understands that these cops are pathetic little wimps that apparently wouldn't be capable of catching up to an 11 year old if she decided to run with "evidence". They had to cuff the 11 year old because she could have easily beaten up these pathetic excuses for police officers.

Seriously Eggegg, you might want to rethink the idea that the police handcuffing everyone they interact with on the basis of shit they might do is okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Eggegg clearly just understands that these cops are pathetic little wimps that apparently wouldn't be capable of catching up to an 11 year old if she decided to run with "evidence". They had to cuff the 11 year old because she could have easily beaten up these pathetic excuses for police officers.

Seriously Eggegg, you might want to rethink the idea that the police handcuffing everyone they interact with on the basis of shit they might do is okay.

lol yup

It's a no win situation for those like eggnog.  If the cops knocked on the door and handcuffed everyone, there would be an excuse.  Probably the mother's fault for being scared.  If the cops stormed in and shot everyone, there would be an excuse.  Probably the mother's fault for being scared.  You can't put any blame on cops or their training because then it's admitting the cops aren't above reproach, and police being glorified is more important than anything else, including safety.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

By this logic almost any abuse of civil rights can be justified based upon “possibilities”.  The warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment for searches and arrests should not be treated as suggestions.

For the third time what is your opinion of the officers’ actions in the Daniel Shiver shooting:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/12/10/daniel-shaver-philip-brailsford-shooting-bodycam-video-sandoval-pkg-newday-new.cnn

If this is justified what actions aren’t justified by “officer safety”?

For the third time I’m ignoring your question because you seem to have an odd habit of trying to entrap people by asking questions on unrelated topics. I’ve seen you do this numerous times and I have little interest in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

For the third time I’m ignoring your question because you seem to have an odd habit of trying to entrap people by asking questions on unrelated topics. I’ve seen you do this numerous times and I have little interest in it

The topic of this thread is police abuse of power.  How is my question unrelated?  Police abuse their powers in ways other than handcuffing 11 year olds without arrest warrants that are issued by a neutral judicial arbiter upon a finding of probable cause to arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

lol yup

It's a no win situation for those like eggnog.  If the cops knocked on the door and handcuffed everyone, there would be an excuse.  Probably the mother's fault for being scared.  If the cops stormed in and shot everyone, there would be an excuse.  Probably the mother's fault for being scared.  You can't put any blame on cops or their training because then it's admitting the cops aren't above reproach, and police being glorified is more important than anything else, including safety.  

We’ll clearly I can’t discuss the issue with you if you are just resorting to hyperbole and exaggerations.

Im not saying the police are entitled to burst in and shoot anyone, but it’s totally form for you to accuse people of saying things they aren’t so no surprises there

Its a no win situation for the cops here, who have behaved professionally, unlike in some other cases. It’s impossible to discuss this here clearly as you are not able to look at facts without blowing up with emotion so I’m out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

We’ll clearly I can’t discuss the issue with you if you are just resorting to hyperbole and exaggerations.

Im not saying the police are entitled to burst in and shoot anyone, but it’s totally form for you to accuse people of saying things they aren’t so no surprises there

Its a no win situation for the cops here, who have behaved professionally, unlike in some other cases. It’s impossible to discuss this here clearly as you are not able to look at facts without blowing up with emotion so I’m out. 

How is violating the rights of people, with impunity, professional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The topic of this thread is police abuse of power.  How is my question unrelated?  Police abuse their powers in ways other than handcuffing 11 year olds without arrest warrants that are issued by a neutral judicial arbiter upon a finding of probable cause to arrest.

We are discussing a specific case. If you wanna talk about that then fine, but stop trying to divert onto another case in order to supposedly entrap people, you do this a lot. 

Anyway, you don’t need a warrant to handcuff someone if you believe they could cause harm to someone or themselves. Officers have the freedom to decide that. Plus they may well have had a warrant for that address seeing as the suspect was thought to be there ( I’m not sure if they did, but thats not the point)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

We are discussing a specific case. If you wanna talk about that then fine, but stop trying to divert onto another case in order to supposedly entrap people, you do this a lot. 

Anyway, you don’t need a warrant to handcuff someone if you believe they could cause harm to someone or themselves. Officers have the freedom to decide that. Plus they may well have had a warrant for that address seeing as the suspect was thought to be there ( I’m not sure if they did, but thats not the point)

The warrant was then for the arrest of the suspect, not everyone in the suspect’s vicinity.  The problem I’m not sure you are seeing is that behavior that is considered “professional” by police may not be acceptable to the public at large.  That dichotomy is a serious problem and it is what we are talking about.

You may consider subjective fear felt by an officer of a person who is determined to be unarmed good cause for that officer to behave as “a reasonable officer” would and absolve that officer of criminal liability for their actions.  But that doesn’t mean such determinations should be acceptable.

Police exist to protect the public.  When the public at large is fearful of “reasonable police actions” there is a serious problem.

That is what we are attempting to discuss.

I would appreciate your contribution even if we disagree.  An echo chamber is never helpful in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

We are discussing a specific case. If you wanna talk about that then fine, but stop trying to divert onto another case in order to supposedly entrap people, you do this a lot. 

Anyway, you don’t need a warrant to handcuff someone if you believe they could cause harm to someone or themselves. Officers have the freedom to decide that. Plus they may well have had a warrant for that address seeing as the suspect was thought to be there ( I’m not sure if they did, but thats not the point)

The police have the right to handcuff some person just because they believe he may harm someone or himself? Does the concept of just cause exist in your world? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eggegg said:

You mean this footage where the officers treat her calmly and respectfully, don't shout at her,  where her mother is yelling and screaming at the police to not handcuff her and then when they do the child reacts by screaming and yelling? 

http://time.com/5067130/grand-rapids-police-11-year-old-handcuff/

Quote

“Once onscene, officers determined that the suspect fled the residence still armed with the knife, Their investigation led to a second Westside Grand Rapids home where it was believed the suspect may have fled to. As officers were setting up a perimeter, three females simultaneously exited the home, two adults and one 11 year old juvenile. Until it could be determined that the individuals were not the suspect, nor armed with a weapon, the three were ordered back to officers and detained. 

Seems to me pretty reasonable that if they are looking for a suspect and evidence that 3 people leaving the house at the same time is reason enough to detain them and make sure they aren't escaping with evidence, especially if that evidence is a weapon. The headline that they are somehow mistaking a white woman for a black child is misleading and clearly not what is happening.

Interesting word joice to refer to the eleven year old as a juvenile... I guess refering to her as a child might have made the cops look ridiculous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

We’ll clearly I can’t discuss the issue with you if you are just resorting to hyperbole and exaggerations.

Im not saying the police are entitled to burst in and shoot anyone, but it’s totally form for you to accuse people of saying things they aren’t so no surprises there

Its a no win situation for the cops here, who have behaved professionally, unlike in some other cases. It’s impossible to discuss this here clearly as you are not able to look at facts without blowing up with emotion so I’m out. 

"Professionally"?  Are you joking?  They handcuffed a child for no reason other than she was standing on her porch when they drove up.  Then they made some stupid excuse that she might run away with evidence even though no one was running away when they arrived.  

And the reason this can't be discussed with the likes of you is that you literally can't find fault with the police because you're world view requires that they be manly and perfect and anything different is too damaging to your fragile worldview so can't be considered. 

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

We are discussing a specific case. If you wanna talk about that then fine, but stop trying to divert onto another case in order to supposedly entrap people, you do this a lot. 

Anyway, you don’t need a warrant to handcuff someone if you believe they could cause harm to someone or themselves. Officers have the freedom to decide that. Plus they may well have had a warrant for that address seeing as the suspect was thought to be there ( I’m not sure if they did, but thats not the point)

No, this thread is about police abuse of power.  No one is being entrapped.  You're just being held accountable for your bullshit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The warrant was then for the arrest of the suspect, not everyone in the suspect’s vicinity.  The problem I’m not sure you are seeing is that behavior that is considered “professional” by police may not be acceptable to the public at large.  That dichotomy is a serious problem and it is what we are talking about.

You may consider subjective fear felt by an officer of a person who is determined to be unarmed good cause for that officer to behave as “a reasonable officer” would and absolve that officer of criminal liability for their actions.  But that doesn’t mean such determinations should be acceptable.

Police exist to protect the public.  When the public at large is fearful of “reasonable police actions” there is a serious problem.

That is what we are attempting to discuss.

I would appreciate your contribution even if we disagree.  An echo chamber is never helpful in my opinion.

Well the warrant would be for the property and if those people are leaving that property I think it would apply to them as well. 

Ok I'll discuss the Daniel Shiver shooting. I think it is murder. Flat out abuse of power. I think the cop should be sent to jail for it, but as I understand it, that won't happen, and that the jury were not even shown that video? I might be wrong on that. Anyway from what I saw that is a guy who should not be allowed a gun or a badge. There were a million better ways for him to have handled that situation and he found the worst one. I mean why didn't they just go over and cuff him while his hands were behind his head? Problem solved. 

So no, I don't think the two cases compare. 

Look, I can see that someone like Dr Pepper is chomping at the bit wanting to paint me as some right wing lunatic, but I'm not. I am as appalled as everyone else by some of these shootings, the levels of police brutality and stupidity I've witnessed has shocked me numerous times and I wholly agree that something has to be done.
However I commented because someone brought up the case of the 11 year old girl, which I think is a very different case of events and is I believe actually just police attempting to do their job in difficult circumstances. To some here, viewed through a lens where all police are 'pathetic wimps' or corrupt or violent, then those actions appear amplified and unreasonable,  In the current climate that view is understandable, but not always accurate, as not all cops are violent thugs and not all criminals are innocent victims behaving ideally. 

Why I commented was due to the dishonesty of the headline, the suggestion that cops are so stupid and so racist that they will arrest a 11 year old black girl simply because she was black, another cases of police racism and violence. But that doesn't even appear to be the case here, as they didn't mistake her for the suspect at all Its just police taking necessary precautions in a situation where a woman had been violently stabbed and they had just cause to believe that those leaving the residence could be involved. 
 

Quote

Police exist to protect the public.  When the public at large is fearful of “reasonable police actions” there is a serious problem.

I think certainly there is a problem. If you cannot trust the police to behave in a reasonable manner then its going to cause resentment and fear and distrust. And its very important to trust in the police to do their job. The Daniel Shiver case shows a cop who appears to delight in the game of Simon Says he's playing with the victim, who is utterly trigger happy, and in my opinion is someone who shouldn't pass any sort of psych exams. The more people like him you have on the force the more problems we are going to see. Police do have a very difficult job and are risking their lives on an almost daily basis, and its understandable if you give them guns that people get shot. But that cops actions are indefensible, and that is leading to a fear of the police that is really regretful, so when the police are just doing their jobs or taking necessary precautions, it gets blown up and painted as extreme abuse, when it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that police have an incredibly difficult job to do.  What I disagree with you about is that is it public perception is prompting the exteme behavior from Police.  Cuffing an 11 year old, while not the same as the Daniel Shiver shooting, is (in my opinion) part of the problem.

Some police seem to have elevated their safety above that of the people they exist to protect.  Hence they do things like cuffing an 11 year old.  As Dr. Pepper pointed out this action will indelibly mark this child for life.  In the officers’ minds they are taking “reasonable” precautions.  In the mind of the child and the child’s parents the child was restrained for no particular reason regarding allegations that had nothing to do with the child.

While I can see the officer’s point of view cuffing a child in the circumstances they describe is counterproductive in the long term.  They may have made themselves safe in the short term but they’ve created another person who does not trust police in the long term.  The more people who see police as people who are willing to abuse their power and take extraordinary steps with people very unlikely to cause them harm the more dangerous those people are to police.

I treat police like a bomb waiting to go off.   I use kid gloves in every interaction with an officer because I don’t want to be shot or to have a member of my family shot.  This kind of interaction damages police and, thus, just increases their danger by making people even more fearful.

Think of it this way.  The officer who kept escalating in the Daniel Shiver case probably thought that if he scared Shiver enough Shiver would obey all commands.  Yet, Shiver was so terrified that he probably had a really hard time doing everything he was told because the officer had scared him beyond reason.  In this case officer’s are building in fear to a new person.  Fear that will be there forever for their short term safety.  Fear that very well may create a Daniel Shiver reaction in this child.

Fear should not be a tool of police work.  It encourages people to avoid police and to take the law into their own hands because they have seen police cannot be trusted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I absolutely agree that police have an incredibly difficult job to do.  What I disagree with you about is that is it public perception is prompting the exteme behavior from Police.  Cuffing an 11 year old, while not the same as the Daniel Shiver shooting, is (in my opinion) part of the problem.

I didn't say this and I'm not arguing it either. 

I do think that police have a very difficult job to do and their safety is very important. Someone being handcuffed for 2 minutes is more than a price I would pay to make sure nobody dies. 

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Some police seem to have elevated their safety above that of the people they exist to protect.  Hence they do things like cuffing an 11 year old.  As Dr. Pepper pointed out this action will indelibly mark this child for life.  In the officers’ minds they are taking “reasonable” precautions.  In the mind of the child and the child’s parents the child was restrained for no particular reason regarding allegations that had nothing to do with the child.

No officer should take steps that would put their or other peoples lives in danger because they are worried about how it will look in the press. You can see in this case that the headlines and reporting of the incident is inflamatory and even dishonest, and I wholly disagree that its this incident that will mark the child for life, her reactions to the police seem quite influenced by those of her mother and those around her. 

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

While I can see the officer’s point of view cuffing a child in the circumstances they describe is counterproductive in the long term.  They may have made themselves safe in the short term but they’ve created another person who does not trust police in the long term.  The more people who see police as people who are willing to abuse their power and take extraordinary steps with people very unlikely to cause them harm the more dangerous those people are to police.

I treat police like a bomb waiting to go off.   I use kid gloves in every interaction with an officer because I don’t want to be shot or to have a member of my family shot.  This kind of interaction damages police and, thus, just increases their danger by making people even more fearful.

I think it goes two ways though, the police have to be careful of their perception, but at the same time the press and the general public have to be honest and open and avoid immediately demonising the police and assuming the worst. This incident might have been a PR disaster, but thats partly because it sits alongside other incidents like the Shivers case. We have to be rational and treat each incident on its own merits, and we cannot get to a point where an officer cannot put handcuffs on someone they suspect maybe carrying a weapon for fear that it will go viral. To some this incident is an abuse of power, but to others its not, its actually just standard procedure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I didn't say this and I'm not arguing it either. 

I do think that police have a very difficult job to do and their safety is very important. Someone being handcuffed for 2 minutes is more than a price I would pay to make sure nobody dies. 

No officer should take steps that would put their or other peoples lives in danger because they are worried about how it will look in the press. You can see in this case that the headlines and reporting of the incident is inflamatory and even dishonest, and I wholly disagree that its this incident that will mark the child for life, her reactions to the police seem quite influenced by those of her mother and those around her. 

I think it goes two ways though, the police have to be careful of their perception, but at the same time the press and the general public have to be honest and open and avoid immediately demonising the police and assuming the worst. This incident might have been a PR disaster, but thats partly because it sits alongside other incidents like the Shivers case. We have to be rational and treat each incident on its own merits, and we cannot get to a point where an officer cannot put handcuffs on someone they suspect maybe carrying a weapon for fear that it will go viral. To some this incident is an abuse of power, but to others its not, its actually just standard procedure. 

Here's the difficulty.  Police are public servants.  They exist to protect and serve the public at large.  You are asking that people remain calm when individuals who are given the power of the state to use force abuse that power to use force.  Police, in the United States, literally hold the power of life and death over every person with whom they interact.  When that power is abused, or if it appears that power is abused, people have every rational reason to be upset.  

To quote Rust Cohle from "True Detective", "Of course I'm scary.  I'm police I have the power to do terrible things... with impunity."   While I appreciate what you are saying I do not see how reform can be prompted without people getting mad.  In other words how can we push police to change their practices if we don't get upset?  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's the difficulty.  Police are public servants.  They exist to protect and serve the public at large.  You are asking that people remain calm when individuals who are given the power of the state to use force abuse that power to use force.  Police, in the United States, literally hold the power of life and death over every person with whom they interact.  When that power is abused, or if it appears that power is abused, people have every rational reason to be upset.  

To quote Rust Cohle from "True Detective", "Of course I'm scary.  I'm police I have the power to do terrible things... with impunity."   While I appreciate what you are saying I do not see how reform can be prompted without people getting mad.  In other words how can we push police to change their practices if we don't get upset?  
 

So Police do not have the right to take precautions to protect themselves because of how it might be viewed? No matter how reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

So Police do not have the right to take precautions to protect themselves because of how it might be viewed? No matter how reasonable?

That’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying there is cost to that.  That when police value their lives above the lives of the people they exist to protect there is a loss of trust from that public which pushes police to take more steps to protect themselves.  It is a dangerous feedback loop.  

The more police act to protect themselves from the people they exist to protect the less the public trusts police.  The less the public trusts the police the more the police act to protect themselves from the public.  

If police, who hold the power to kill with the sanction of law, do not back away from that feedback loop they will, eventually, be stripped of their power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...