Jump to content

Law Enforcement and its abuse of power


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks Scot. I'll add a thought or two...

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, the officer could have shot at Bryant’s legs—and had lower chance of actually hitting than if he shot at her chest.

Well, yes, shooting to debilitate requires training.

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I find this blanket condemnation towards using any lethal force in any context the exact opposite unreasonable extreme to allowing them to kill whoever breaks a law.

 There's a nuance missing: it is a condemnation of lethal force as the primary means of "protecting" potential victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

long standing rule (according to my long ago security guard training, which purportedly covered civilians and cops alike) was

1 - you do not draw your firearm unless you intend to use it.

2 - you use your firearm *ONLY* if a life is at stake (yours or somebody elses.)

3 - when you use your firearm, you shoot to kill, *NOT* to disable.  (later changed to 'shoot to stop, meaning 'center of mass')

This was literally decades ago, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cops need more training of course (especially in the way they use firearms), but I also think they dont need to be armed for every interaction with the public. For instance, I've never understood why stopping someone for a traffic (or vehicle) infraction needs to involve firearms. The only case I can think of is if it is a drug bust or active chase, but these are only a fraction of the cases. Absolutely no need for the kabuki theater around having someone step outside with their hands in full view etc. Also note that the cop stopped the driver, the driver wasnt actively looking for a confrontation which is another reason for there being no reason for escalation.

Decriminalizing possession of marijuana would go a great way in reducing those cases. Not having quotas for arrests would help too. Not needing to enforce every piddling law would as well.

Edited by IheartIheartTesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Absolutely no need for the kabuki theater around having someone step outside with their hands in full view etc.

But that's just it. This cop culture as it has evolved, going back to south in slavery days is entirely BDSM, but not in a fun way. Back then and there that is WHAT COPS DID AND NOTHING ELSE.  They hunted down self-emancipating property, administer corporeal violence upon bodies that the white people who were too 'humane' to do themselves paid them to do, African Americans (yes, free people too) out after curfew, without papers, written permission, where they weren't supposed to be, who didn't have a white person to vouch for it all,  and look out for 'insurrection', Haitian style. They dealt not at all with anything considered a crime these days, and certainly not with white people at all.  This is where all our policing was born.

And they love that shyte.  It's the reason they're in this job.

If you don't believe me, get stopped for no real reason by a white Ohio cop, all in black leather, hood and shades, and have him tell you, with hand on gun, to get out of your car, then opens the door to his cop vehicle, and pats the seat next to him, w/o saying a single word.  Speaking of experience here, as a white person.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Well, yes, shooting to debilitate requires training.

Even with training, it’s a harder target to make.

If the officer didn’t make it then the odds of Bryant killing someone remains the same.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

There's a nuance missing: it is a condemnation of lethal force as the primary means of "protecting" potential victims.

But you have to acknowledge that sometimes, yes, such force is optimal to use against someone actively putting the lives of others at sever risk.

 

@Week

It’s sad that a child is dead. It’d also be sad if this child killed someone—especially potentially another child.

So no I’m not going to wag my finger at someone who at the time took the most optimal course of protecting another human being.

But hey, maybe the woman/girl Bryant was trying to stab would have appreciated the officer not done that and put her life at more risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Law Enforcement discussion is clogging up the US Politics thread.  Creating new thread for the more focused discussion of the desperate necessity for reform of American Law Enforcement.

Can you remove the US part or amend it to being American?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But you have to acknowledge that sometimes, yes, such force is optimal to use against someone actively putting the lives of others at sever risk.

Extremely rarely. Extremely rarely. With a LOT of fucking paperwork and accountability afterwards. I am glad to see in this instance there is going to be an investigation -- however, we've seen more instances of a bullshit investigation than not.

40 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s sad that a child is dead. It’d also be sad if this child killed someone—especially potentially another child.

So no I’m not going to wag my finger at someone who at the time took the most optimal course of protecting another human being.

But hey, maybe the woman/girl Bryant was trying to stab would have appreciated the officer not done that and put her life at more risk.

"IF" -- it's a drastic, deadly decision made upon an "if". IF she stabbed her and IF the wound was in a dangerous plays and IF they couldn't give her treatment. Instead of those possibilities (while obviously taking a different action before, during, and after the incident -- again, this escalation took place while police were there and responsible for the situation).

https://apnews.com/article/makhia-bryant-ohio-shooting-video-recordings-186abfbcfd1717a8c42a38021a83de4b

Quote

“No! You ain’t shoot my (expletive) baby!” an unidentified Black man screams at the officer. “You shot my (expletive) baby!”

Reardon, who is white, responds, “She had a knife. She just went at her.”

You have no respect for life,” another Black man, who lives across the street, can be heard yelling. “No, actually, you have no respect for Black life.

Another neighbor was heard on body camera footage saying, “You ever hear of de-escalating? No, you guys just shoot.

Some of the appreciation from people in the neighborhood that were close enough to be heard on body cam. Enough with putting your words in the mouth of a girl in a traumatic incident for your own argument. You believe the police are justified in killing children if there is a knife involved and the perception of imminent danger (in the officer's -- undoubtable well trained, unbiased, and honest -- opinion). Own that. That is the basis of our disagreement that you continue to argue by crafting your own narrative around the events at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But you have to acknowledge that sometimes, yes, such force is optimal to use against someone actively putting the lives of others at sever risk.

You realize you have made the argument it is justified that many people, more often than not, innocent people, are killed by cops because occasionally there is a real threat and these cops are so ignorant and / or cruel and ill-trained, and allowed, nay encouraged even by popular entertainment to kill, and don't suffer criticism or penalty. and shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Just because, well sometimes.  Beyond that you ignore the entire theater the cop culture and entertainment culture has created around that kind of killing and the very theater of being a cop itself.

We aren't talking bomb detonation and evacuation teams of cops and / or firefighters here, who are really putting their lives on the line for all of us.  We're talking about white guys with guns and badges who treat everyone like shyte because they are white cop (mostly) guys with guns and badges and are entitled to do so.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

But you have to acknowledge that sometimes, yes, such force is optimal to use against someone actively putting the lives of others at sever risk.

 

 

I've been in the police 20 years. I've literally never drawn my CS spray or my baton. The UK is not the US, but If you can talk you can de escalate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Week said:

Extremely rarely. Extremely rarely. With a LOT of fucking paperwork and accountability afterwards. I am glad to see in this instance there is going to be an investigation -- however, we've seen more instances of a bullshit investigation than not.

Extremely rarely. In a case like Bryant that’s one of the extremely rare instances where law enforcement can reasonably be interpreted to use lethal force.

46 minutes ago, Week said:

IF" -- it's a drastic, deadly decision made upon an "if". IF she stabbed her and IF the wound was in a dangerous plays and IF they couldn't give her treatment.

It’s a reasonable if. 
It’s reasonable when there are literally seconds  to decide that the person whose mid swing someone with a knife is probably going to stab that someone with a knife for an officer to shoot said person.

The person under threat of being potentially murdered safety need take priority.

55 minutes ago, Week said:

Some of the appreciation from people in the neighborhood that were close enough to be heard on body cam.

In the other thread @Fez has already cited a neighbor who watched the exchange not agreeing with the initial outrage from those on the street who weren’t under the immediate threat of being stabbed.

57 minutes ago, Week said:

You believe the police are justified in killing children if there is a knife involved and the perception of imminent danger (in the officer's -- undoubtable well trained, unbiased, and honest -- opinion). Own that.

I believe the police can be justified in using lethal force against those actively and seriously posing a danger towards others especially when there’s a deadly weapon being used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You realize you have made the argument it is justified that many people, more often than not, innocent people, are killed by cops because occasionally there is a real threat and these cops are so ignorant and / or cruel and ill-trained, and allowed, nay encouraged even by popular entertainment to kill, and don't suffer criticism or penalty. and shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Just because, well sometimes. 

No.

Not all police killings are equal. Not all of them need to be treated like George Floyd and I don’t think you truly believe they are equivalent. rightfully saying that the facisht who was shot by the police for trying to overthrow democracy on the sixth was completely justified.

You were not making an argument that the many unjustified police killings were somehow justified because of instance they were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

Enough with putting your words in the mouth of a girl in a traumatic incident for your own argument.

I’m willing to bet the trauma would mostly stem from her almost getting stabbed.

But I’m sure you’d tell her the incident before the cop shot wasn’t that extreme.

It was just a kitchen knife(honestly wtf did you get that tidbit of information idk), and wax on how it wasn’t for sure that her getting a stabbed would have killed her and how much of a travesty the cop prioritized her welfare over the person trying to stab her.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I've been in the police 20 years. I've literally never drawn my CS spray or my baton. The UK is not the US, but If you can talk you can de escalate. 

Most cops even in the US don’t fire in the line of duty as well. Our media tends to glamorize and sensationalize faucets of law-enforcement which leads to a lot of meatheads on a power trip joining up. Not all cops mind you. But enough to where it’s a significant problem.
I don’t think talking to deescalate is possible in every situation.

Like there was no singular sentence that probably had a great chance of stopping Bryant mid swing here.

Sometimes force is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe take a deep breath before a manic quad-reply. The knife has been referred as a kitchen knife in many stories. I'll also note that the neighbor in the story Fez quoted watched the events from a security camera and was not present. 

Again, your narration of the events is bordering on offensive. I'm not sure what bee is in your bonnet about police *needing* to kill people but, uh, you're arguing the side of the police using deadly force which does not need more advocates. They already manage to kill thousands in the US every year. Fear not, they are undoubtedly saving the lives of at least a thousand people on the other side of the ledger. /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I've been in the police 20 years. I've literally never drawn my CS spray or my baton. The UK is not the US, but If you can talk you can de escalate. 

Sure. But in that video there was no time to talk; everything happened within seconds.

Also worth noting, the US has an intentional homicide rate 4x higher than the UK. So yes there are plenty of times that US police are committing murder, like Derek Chauvin; however, it also makes sense that there will be more justified killings by US police than UK police, because US police are more likely to encounter a violent assault in progress.

UK police killed 5 people in 2020. Because of how rare it is, presumably most people would agree that all 5 were justified. Normalize that to the US population size and you get 25 police killings. Multiple that by 4x to account for the higher violent crime rate and you get 100 police killings. The US actually had 1,146 police killings in 2019 (most recent data year), which goes to show how bad things are with the US police; and I've never disputed that. However, it would also mean that about 1 in 11 US police killings are justified. And my point has only ever been that all the evidence so far says that what happened in Columbus is one of those justified ones.

But there seem to be some people who think that police killings are never justified, no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

Maybe take a deep breath before a manic quad-reply. The knife has been referred as a kitchen knife in many stories.

To what effect could that detail—if it even is true and I await citation of articles describing Bryant grabbing the knife from the kitchen—be pertinent to continuously reference other than to try downplay the sever damage that it could have done in the hands Bryant?

1 hour ago, Week said:

Again, your narration of the events is bordering on offensive. I'm not sure what bee is in your bonnet about police *needing* to kill people

I’m arguing for there to be a distinction for justified police killings and unjustified ones rather than pretend the only options are the extreme of drawing no distinction.

That I either have to condemn them all or praise them all.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But you have to acknowledge that sometimes, yes, such force is optimal to use against someone actively putting the lives of others at sever risk.

I already have (in the other thread), and I still second Zorral: for one case where lethal force was indeed optimal you will easily get several where it was really not. Therefore I think it is problematic to train police officers as if all cases are going to be such "life and death" situations.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Extremely rarely. In a case like Bryant that’s one of the extremely rare instances where law enforcement can reasonably be interpreted to use lethal force.

The problem we're having is that you focus on this case and ignore the broader implications. If use of lethal force is justified for a split-second decision that turns out to be correct, then it is equally justified when it turns out not to be. Because such an argument places such great responsibiity on the officers' shoulders, it also absolves them of wrongdoing in many situations.

This becomes then an issue of trust. Whether you believe that empowering police officers results in split-second decisions that are correct at least most of the time, or whether that kind of training actually results in them regularly shooting before properly assessing a situation and thus killing unnecessarily. And how can you trust the cops to make the right choice if you know for a fact their training revolves around shooting to kill? You and I both know that their training is too short and that even without bringing in nefarious intentions (racism, socio-economics... etc), that kind of training will get innocents killed. Honestly, if I were a cop I'd want options, so as to avoid having to endlessly think about whether I could have done things differently when it's too late.

That's why looking at this one case where the training worked as intended is helpful to discuss possible options for the future. Debilitating shots or better non-lethal weapons for instance. Because if killing people is still the most efficient way to neutralize violent criminals in 2021, perhaps that's an issue in itself. Even if you don't think it should be done for Bryant's sake, it should be done for the times when there wasn't a kitchen knife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the odds per the above are at best 1 in 11 in the US (remember that George floyd wouldn't have counted as a police killing if we had taken the mpd report at its word, so its probably way higher) I think that the most reasonable thing to say is the following: unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was justified it should not be considered a justified killing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a better alternative, technology wise, than either taser or shoot to kill.  We've seen, even if you just look at the last year, that US cops fucking LOVE to use pepper spray and rubber bullets on civilians.  I'm not advocating using this shit on protesters, and the effects of "less-lethal" weapons are often tragic and sometimes fatal, but there has got to be a lot of room for some R&D on the tech end with a goal of "Maybe just incapacitate a person who is a potential threat with something that is very unlikely to kill them".  I mean we put people on the goddamn moon.

edit: to be clear - I think the entire training processes for cops to deal with a potential threat are seriously flawed.  I'm just throwing this out as another angle that might drop the deaths by police.

Edited by larrytheimp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...