Are The Police Serving & Protecting Your Community?

[GGT]

There are two points here that I'd like to make. First the very same argument could be made for the police officer - that he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, something that I've yet to see you recognize.

Well, police can't use "self-defense" or "stand your ground" the same way civilians do.

The police officer was hospitalized after the incident. More importantly than that though, it's important to realize that there can, and are multiple standards here. There is the legal standard, which can have a much higher burden of proof to establish legal guilt, and public perception, which exists outside the legal framework and is informed by common sense. Both are important.

Sure, both legal standards and public perceptions matter as frameworks. That's why police withholding incident reports and initial autopsy reports can look "suspicious". And terminology is important in other ways, too. The officer was not "hospitalized" after the incident just because he had treatment at a hospital -- it's routine procedure to send cops to the nearest hospital after lethal events like this, and even keep them "overnight" for observation. That doesn't prove anything.

You are also tilting at an enormous straw man here. Lewk hasn't once said that police officers should be able to execute anyone for any reason, he in fact has said the opposite in this thread. What Lewk is actually arguing is that the police should have the right to defend themselves.

Police have the right (and expectation) to defend themselves. But that's not what we're arguing about. What's at stake is whether or not a *professional* police can be trusted to use lethal force as a last resort.


And if we can't rely on police to act like *professionals*.....is it any surprise that guys like Lewk can't see the difference between shooting shoplifters or jaywalkers dead, or taking them into custody for the courts to sort out?

[Enoch the Red]

Well, police can't use "self-defense" or "stand your ground" the same way civilians do.

Putting aside the veracity of what you said, what does that have to do with the police officer being innocent until proven guilty?

Sure, both legal standards and public perceptions matter as frameworks. That's why police withholding incident reports and initial autopsy reports can look "suspicious". And terminology is important in other ways, too. The officer was not "hospitalized" after the incident just because he had treatment at a hospital -- it's routine procedure to send cops to the nearest hospital after lethal events like this, and even keep them "overnight" for observation. That doesn't prove anything.

The last reports that I've seen said that he was hospitalized with swelling to his face.

Police have the right (and expectation) to defend themselves. But that's not what we're arguing about. What's at stake is whether or not a *professional* police can be trusted to use lethal force as a last resort.

And if we can't rely on police to act like *professionals*.....is it any surprise that guys like Lewk can't see the difference between shooting shoplifters or jaywalkers dead, or taking them into custody for the courts to sort out?

You clearly aren't arguing about the same thing. Lewk has not argued that shoplifters and jaywalkers should be summarily executed by the police, he has argued that if a police officer is attacked he/she should have a right to defend themselves. I don't think anyone has a full understanding of what happened on the ground, which should be important in determining whether or not this situation was handled appropriately.

I'll grant you that in many communities the police are not seen as peace officers, and professional conduct is not always a given.