Are The Police Serving & Protecting Your Community?

[Lewkowski]

What "reeks" is the police dept. withheld incident reports and coroner reports (that are open public documents)....but instead released store video of an un-related shoplifting incident, and claimed it was b/c "the media" was hounding them under Sunshine laws. That's bogus. It's no wonder Ferguson residents perceived this as police protecting one of their own over a young black kid's civil rights, with hints of a cover-up.

So should a police department defend their own when they believe their own did the right thing? Pointing out that the alleged 'victim' was a brutal thug seems very relevant to the situation.

[Flixy]

So should a police department defend their own when they believe their own did the right thing? Pointing out that the alleged 'victim' was a brutal thug seems very relevant to the situation.

Considering police had to be impartial and be above suspicion, no, the department shouldn't defend him. His own lawyer should do that, and he should not get preferential treatment from the police department (and ideally, the investigation should be done by an independent body). If not, either the guy did nothing wrong and is exonerated, but because the police department wasn't impartial, the result of the investigation is doubted which erodes public trust of the police, or cops who actually did misbehave are also not held responsible, which is obviously also a bad thing.

[Lewkowski]

Considering police had to be impartial and be above suspicion, no, the department shouldn't defend him. His own lawyer should do that, and he should not get preferential treatment from the police department (and ideally, the investigation should be done by an independent body). If not, either the guy did nothing wrong and is exonerated, but because the police department wasn't impartial, the result of the investigation is doubted which erodes public trust of the police, or cops who actually did misbehave are also not held responsible, which is obviously also a bad thing.

Eh? If I'm your supervisor and I think you haven't done wrong I've got your back. That's basic. Absolutely the department should be looking for the truth and investigating impartially however they also have a vested interest in supporting their own AND managing public opinion. This is true in pretty much all government based organizations.

[Flixy]

You do realise that 'impartial' and 'vested interest' don't go well together?

And, yes, which is why most don't investigate themselves.

[Lewkowski]

You do realise that 'impartial' and 'vested interest' don't go well together?

And, yes, which is why most don't investigate themselves.

And the FBI is involved as well. The DOJ (a very biased group under Eric Holder) is also involved as well.

Heck considering the police's job is to maintain city order - any evidence that would show the riots are uncalled for would be evidence they are obligated to share with the public. Riots = bad. Of course liberals don't care about the businesses in the area at all.

[LittleFuzzy]

So should a police department defend their own when they believe their own did the right thing? Pointing out that the alleged 'victim' was a brutal thug seems very relevant to the situation.

Right. The "relevant" thing to do in the situation is to say "that thug got what was coming to him" and implying "and the same will be coming to the rest of you if you don't settle down." Great way to deescalate protests and riots Lewk. Wonderful method of upholding those property interests you're so enamored of.

Heck considering the police's job is to maintain city order - any evidence that would show the riots are uncalled for would be evidence they are obligated to share with the public. Riots = bad.

No, any evidence that might quell the agitated response is something they should be sharing. Showing that they are "uncalled for" (by saying the guy was a criminal and had it coming to him) is meaningless except for getting a feeling of vindication no matter how bad things get/parading for a wider stage than the local area. It will not do anything to help maintain order.

[Lewkowski]

Only the most liberal die hard 'all cops are bad' would think that evidence that goes against the character of an alleged 'victim' is useless. The fact that he robbed a store just a short time ago shows that the man was capable and ready to use violence to get his way. It in no way PROVES that it was a good shoot but it should give any reasonable person pause to say, "You know what... maybe we should wait for the investigation to be looked at it. This very well may be a guy who was out of control and attacked the officer."

And if it turns out it was a good shoot. And that the thug charged the police officer then his little shit stain friend who lied about it to the media needs to be brought up on charges and made an example of.

[LittleFuzzy]

Only the most liberal die hard 'all cops are bad' would think that evidence that goes against the character of an alleged 'victim' is useless. The fact that he robbed a store just a short time ago shows that the man was capable and ready to use violence to get his way. It in no way PROVES that it was a good shoot but it should give any reasonable person pause to say, "You know what... maybe we should wait for the investigation to be looked at it. This very well may be a guy who was out of control and attacked the officer."

And if it turns out it was a good shoot. And that the thug charged the police officer then his little shit stain friend who lied about it to the media needs to be brought up on charges and made an example of.

It absolutely is useless for the effect you say we need to be considering, maintaining public order. You're not talking about passionless people with nothing but distant general interest and no stake in the outcome, like yourself. You're talking about people who are already upset and restive. All that saying "look, he was a violent thug anyway," does is convince them that they're right to be upset. Anyone already engaged in a protest or demonstration is not going to meet your (somewhat twisted) definition of a reasonable person. And presenting that claim is nothing but deliberately provacative ad hominem anyway. Useful only for feeding your petty sense of vindication that a criminal got his "just desserts."

[GGT]

So should a police department defend their own when they believe their own did the right thing? Pointing out that the alleged 'victim' was a brutal thug seems very relevant to the situation.

I'll answer too, although Flixy and Fuzzy did it well enough already. The Police Dept. is supposed to "Serve and Protect" the community at large, not close ranks around fellow cops -- especially not after a fatal shooting -- or withhold information from the public. When police hold back and/or "screen" incident reports, they're not just blocking our Free Press but are acting contrary to their purpose as Public Servants and Peace Officers. Undermining trust is never a good approach to community policing.

Any time a cop discharges his weapon, an internal investigation (at minimum) is done to evaluate whether appropriate force was used. It's even more thorough when someone is injured, let alone killed. That helps both police AND community residents know (and trust) that lethal force is consistently the last resort, not the first.



btw, the kid isn't an "alleged victim", he IS a victim of police force, lethal at that. Either you believe we have an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law set of principles, which holds the police to a higher standard of decision-making and behavior than the average joe.....or you think cops can/should use their guns to act as judge and jury, without question or impunity.

[Enoch the Red]

btw, the kid isn't an "alleged victim", he IS a victim of police force, lethal at that. Either you believe we have an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law set of principles, which holds the police to a higher standard of decision-making and behavior than the average joe.....or you think cops can/should use their guns to act as judge and jury, without question or impunity.

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. 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.

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.

Any time a cop discharges his weapon, an internal investigation (at minimum) is done to evaluate whether appropriate force was used. It's even more thorough when someone is injured, let alone killed. That helps both police AND community residents know (and trust) that lethal force is consistently the last resort, not the first.

Is there any evidence that there wasn't going to be an investigation into this incident?

[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.

[Lewkowski]

btw, the kid isn't an "alleged victim", he IS a victim of police force, lethal at that. Either you believe we have an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law set of principles, which holds the police to a higher standard of decision-making and behavior than the average joe.....or you think cops can/should use their guns to act as judge and jury, without question or impunity.

Actually I don't need the government to advise me of who I can think is guilty or not. Did OJ murder his ex-wife? Does the verdict that the court reached mean you think he was innocent? Please. I notice you never answered my question on Ken Lay.

Based on the evidence so far (police officer in good standing, the ridiclious notion an officer would just randomly execute someone in BROAD daylight - even if he was going to do it why do it this way, and the 'victim' being someone we know does thuggish things like violent rob people) I'm about 80-90% certain the police officer was attacked and defensed himself.

[Aimless]

Do you ever need anything more than your sick imagination and your prejudices?

Saying that remarks about the victim's character are relevant and interesting in this situation is tantamount to missing the big picture entirely. Your police have an extremely shitty image and very little credit with the general public compared to what they need to have in order to properly accomplish their mission. That's the police's fault, not the public's. Fix it

[Hazir]

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

[Spenni]

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

Hope you never get dropped in gangland, your opinion my change real quick

[Wraith]

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

That's kinda crazy paranoid.

[Hazir]

That's kinda crazy paranoid.

That, or American Police has got a serious PR problem.

[Unheard Of]

After the revelations about Hillsborough & Rotherham, I wouldn't be surprised to find the police pushing hard to cover up any transgression. Are the cops more honest in the USA? The instinct of organisations to protect themselves and their own is a hell of a barrier to justice.

[GGT]

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

Veracity of what? Stand-your-ground laws were designed for civilians -- police have a different set of criteria (and professional training) that set a higher standard than 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Roaming public spaces while armed is part of their job, and shouldn't be compared to JQ Public defending their home/property. The cop can be presumed innocent of all sorts of criminal or civil violations, and he gets a benefit of doubt civilians wouldn't get because he's a cop....but the fact remains that he did shoot an unarmed pedestrian multiple times in broad daylight, on a busy street, which caused his death.

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

That was only 'reported' after the policeman's use of lethal force was challenged. Sure, the cop may have been punched in the face....or maybe he put his firearm to face level and got a kick-back injury? That's what an open and thorough investigation is meant to sort out, and whether or not the cop used unnecessary force.

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.

Granted, all the facts aren't known yet, but what we DO know is disturbing. I don't know about you, but I want any Community Police (who's fully armed, in a heavy duty car, with radio back-up) can act like a professional police when dealing with civilians and/or pedestrians....and can hold back/retreat rather than using their weapons first. But it requires a lot of training, drilling, and experience to control the human fight-or-flight fear response.

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

Agreed. Part 2 of the OP was regarding "police militarization". I'm wondering if/why Police Departments have stopped seeing their role as community/peace officers, and taken a more military mindset? It can't just be because the DoD is giving military surplus to states, or that federal grants are being used to move that stuff into small towns.

Actually I don't need the government to advise me of who I can think is guilty or not. Did OJ murder his ex-wife? Does the verdict that the court reached mean you think he was innocent? Please. I notice you never answered my question on Ken Lay.

Based on the evidence so far (police officer in good standing, the ridiclious notion an officer would just randomly execute someone in BROAD daylight - even if he was going to do it why do it this way, and the 'victim' being someone we know does thuggish things like violent rob people) I'm about 80-90% certain the police officer was attacked and defensed himself.

OJ and Ken Lay aren't relevant.

Okay, so there's a couple of guys walking down the middle of a busy street in broad daylight. A cop sees that and is concerned about public safety, so what should he do? How should he proceed? He's patrolling alone, and doesn't have a dash-cam, so it's obviously not a "high crime" area to begin with. So how/why did that event turn out so badly.....with a corpse laying in the street for hours?

[Flixy]

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal

This guy is a victim. Doing something illegal that SHOULD NOT BE illegal. Gambling is state sanctioned and so to protect part of their quasi monopoly the government rabidly goes after people like Sal. This is something to get worked up over. The death of a thug who just robbed a store in broad daylight and then got into an altercation with police? No - not something getting worked up for. But I see no protests for Sal. I see no round the clock news coverage. Do you know why? Because Sal wasn't black.

Surely you support the police department looking after their own? They're just defending their colleague! Or maybe, just maybe, this shows that the vested interests you mentioned earlier prevents impartial investigation? Sure, you're probably going to say you said they should only have eachother's back "if they think you haven't done wrong", but I'd say the point is they are unable to decide that impartially. Plus, as shown in your link they tried to sue the county and the police chief for negligent training and implementing bad policies... which means that aside from investigating their colleague (which they already can't be impartial about), they'd also be potentially investigating themselves, giving a great incentive not to be impartial. Considering you explicitly stated you don't trust IRS statements about dodged taxes, because it's in their own interest, and said government studies can't be trusted, in general, you think it's wise to trust police forces (also government, after all) to investigate themselves?


BTW, I agree with you that that is a good example of unnecessary police force (SWAT team for a non-violent suspect..) gone wrong

[Enoch the Red]

Veracity of what? Stand-your-ground laws were designed for civilians -- police have a different set of criteria (and professional training) that set a higher standard than 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Roaming public spaces while armed is part of their job, and shouldn't be compared to JQ Public defending their home/property. The cop can be presumed innocent of all sorts of criminal or civil violations, and he gets a benefit of doubt civilians wouldn't get because he's a cop....but the fact remains that he did shoot an unarmed pedestrian multiple times in broad daylight, on a busy street, which caused his death.

There are several problems with what you've said here, not the least of which is your framing of stand your ground laws as allowing citizens to shoot first and ask questions later. I don't know the exact wording of each stand your ground statute, but I have never seen one written in such a way that permits someone to shoot without just cause. In fact, stand your ground laws are irrelevant to this discussion as police have never, (as far as I know - this may differ from state to state) been required to retreat when they are assaulted. What they are beholden to is a use of force continuum, and it's also true that there may be scenarios where the police decide to stand down for public safety concerns. I'm thinking specifically about high speed car chases in metropolitan areas. Now, the criteria in question, (as best I can tell from my reading of the relevant statute in Missouri, IANAL) aren't any less permissive than self defense laws, in fact they outline a much broader range of scenarios in which deadly force could be used.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or


(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

Particularly notable are (a) and (c), which, if the officer was telling the truth, would likely apply in this case. Assaulting an officer is a felony, and attempting to wrestle the gun away from the police officer indicates a willingness to endanger life/inflict serious physical injury. Again, IANAL, and there is some question about whether or not the police officer is telling the truth.

I think what I am trying to reconcile is your willingness to discount the facts regarding Michael Brown's strong arm robbery committed minutes before his death (a robbery that was caught on tape) and your insistence that he is innocent until proven guilty on the one hand, and your conviction that this police officer committed an unjustified execution without any corroborating evidence on the other. If you truly want to hold yourself to a belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is fine, but why are you being so selective in how you apply it?

[GGT]

Bump.


Innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law....should apply to Police, as well as citizens. Do you think that principle is being applied equally?

The "police" can mean anything from a county sheriff to a federal agent, and any in-between agency. I'm interested in the conflicts, double standards, and hypocrisies.

Cliven Bundy was violating federal land law for several years....and was "allowed" to avoid prosecution because local police and militiamen took up his cause.

If you're a white guy, you can point a gun at the police and make them go away, huh?

But if you're a dark-skinned male, you should be careful in all your actions, because you're presumed to be a threat.

[Aimless]

I guess Lewk's pretty happy that menace Eric Garner's off the streets due to illegal actions by the police huh

[Aimless]

On the bright side, the police is def. getting very good at finding suicides...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...North-Carolina

(obviously not the only source on this story, just google the boy's name)

[Lewkowski]

I guess Lewk's pretty happy that menace Eric Garner's off the streets due to illegal actions by the police huh

I'm curious as to what level of force you think the police should have used on someone resisting arrest. Liberals don't like batons and tazers - what exactly do they want police officers to do?

Note: I think the reason he was being arrested was retarded but once he started resisting they needed to put him down hard. That guy could have done quite some damage and clearly he was somewhat crazed for trying to resist arrest in the first place.

[GGT]

I'm curious as to what level of force you think the police should have used on someone resisting arrest. Liberals don't like batons and tazers - what exactly do they want police officers to do?

Conservatives and libertarians are concerned about police brutality and excessive force, too.

Note: I think the reason he was being arrested was retarded but once he started resisting they needed to put him down hard. That guy could have done quite some damage and clearly he was somewhat crazed for trying to resist arrest in the first place.

Yes, it's stupid to arrest people for low-level, non-violent, misdemeanor crimes (like selling loose cigarettes, or loitering). But that's how the "broken window" theory effects policy choices. It actually puts cops in a bad situation when someone "resists arrest" for stupid laws....and throws them into the next policy level of arresting for resisting arrest.

No, Garner didn't need to be put down hard. He wasn't a threat to anyone, let alone the police, until they tried to physically restrain/handcuff him. They could have told him to "keep moving", or explained that a shop owner didn't like him loitering in front of his business (or taking away his cigarette-buying customers), and maintained a presence in the area, walking the "beat".

But that kind of Community Policing has been replaced with reactionary policies and responding to 311 calls....along with different treatment for certain ethnic groups. That Indian shop owner didn't have the same 'police protection' that's extended to wealthier (or whiter) communities, and he had no choice but call the cops for all sorts of mundane, misdemeanor behavior.

1) When police are called, they have a duty to respond. But that shouldn't mean they have an "expectation" to make arrests, or put people in hand-cuffs and take them to a holding cell pending adjudication.

2) If that standard was applied equally across the ethic/racial/income board, we'd not only have tons more white and/or wealthy people arrested...but that would overwhelm our criminal justice system.

[Lewkowski]

Yes and in cases where they go after 'criminals' for gambling and then have SWAT shoot someone down in the street is unconscionable.

This is different.

This guy had been arrested thirty times. He resisted arrest with force. If someone is resisting arrest that is ALL the more reason to arrest them because they may be wanted on other charges, think they are getting busted for another crime or having illegal possessions on their person. As soon a police officer attempts to initiate an arrest and the suspect uses force to resist what is the proscribed method of enforcing compliance?

A gun? Liberals hate that.

A Tazer? Liberals hate that.

A take down with physical force (body slams, choke holds, tackles). Liberals hate that.

What EXACTLY do you want the police to do if a suspect resits arrest? Please be specific. Batons? Rubber bullets? Real bullets? Tazer? Pillows? Oh I know maybe whistles and just keep whistling until the suspect gets annoyed and lets himself get arrested.

Here's another example of great policing that liberals would probably scream at (omg the criminal could have cracked his head open and died... or omg that arm was around the guys neck!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0qesnTcsF0

For most Americans we enjoy the spectacle of criminals getting what they deserve.

NOW if you want to talk about the idiocy of laws against people selling homemade tobacco products I'm all ears but this wasn't the cops fault.

[LittleFuzzy]

Most liberals are not as hard to please as you think Lewk. Don't mishandle weapons, lethal or nonlethal, like an untrained dumbass (i.e, don't act like you) and don't kill people who are not and do not pose an immediate threat to anyone elses' lives and most of the people, who aren't nutjobs anymore than someone like Rand or GE is, will be fairly satisfied. The ones who are nuts, like you, won't be but most people will, whether or not they're liberals. But those criteria are so very rarely met in the situations which get brought up on here.

[Lewkowski]

Most liberals are not as hard to please as you think Lewk. Don't mishandle weapons, lethal or nonlethal, like an untrained dumbass (i.e, don't act like you) and don't kill people who are not and do not pose an immediate threat to anyone elses' lives and most of the people, who aren't nutjobs anymore than someone like Rand or GE is, will be fairly satisfied. The ones who are nuts, like you, won't be but most people will, whether or not they're liberals. But those criteria are so very rarely met in the situations which get brought up on here.

Large man resits arrest. Police officers move. Please describe in detail what the officer should do.

Use physical restraining force?

Use Taser?

Use gun?

Use baton?

What's the preferred solution?