[TheWastelander]

(01-26-2015 12:03 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:40 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I would love, for a day, to go back to a system where there's nothing but street justice, mob violence and clan score-settling instead of police. The people upset over the police officer's conduct in this video would really have something to be upset about when gangs of armed men with far less scruples exacted whatever kind of justice they felt like on anyone they pleased.

Yes, anarchy or police state, there's no middle ground. This is the same illogical argument used in all these debates when a "pro-cop" person runs out of things to say.

Quote:

You anti-all cops all the time people need to relax. It makes sense to be anti-police militarization, which is most definitely what I am, but you guys take this to a whole other level.

Is there nothing a cop can do besides die that you would approve of?

I don't know if this enmity is racially-based, politically-motivated or just general ignorance of what the job is like but it's getting ridiculous.

I've already addressed this point the last time you made it a few days ago.

I spent 2 of the last 5 years living with a cop, who has a law degree and is a close family member. This is also someone I spent extremely large amounts of time with growing up. But yeah, I'm anti-cop and hope they all die.

Sorry to ruin your emotional argument, but I think an active police officer talking to me about their job on a daily basis for years probably gives me a better understanding of what the job is like than what you have.

It also gives me insight into how someone who would generally be considered a "good cop" and has a better understanding of the law than most finds it acceptable to bend the rules as they see fit and will defend other officers' ability to do so as well.

Talk to me when you've had coffee at the kitchen table with a police officer as they ask you if them clearly and knowingly breaking the law the day before was "right" because the ends justified the means.

Pro-cop? That's pretty funny. Everywhere else on the internet I'm considered a borderline anarchist with dangerous views but here I'm "pro-cop."

I'm sorry you lived with an obviously bad cop, but you're letting it bleed through and color your analysis. The cop in this video was justified based on what we know and I don't see how any reasonable person could argue otherwise.

If it turns out the gun didn't exist, or they planted it and there's more to this story I'll recant that and admit error, but at this point you and Slim Shady have gone beyond skepticism and revealed your biases.

[MMX2010]

(01-25-2015 11:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Maybe she was lying? Maybe he goes to that church also?

Interesting that her word is taken as truth on a forum where women are accused of and assumed as lying in almost every other news story posted here.

We're not taking her word as truth. We're saying that it matters when answering QC's excellent question, "Was this guy so sufficiently a threat that the officer's decision to shoot was justified?"

[jimukr104]

Quote:

It also gives me insight into how someone who would generally be considered a "good cop" and has a better understanding of the law than most finds it acceptable to bend the rules as they see fit and will defend other officers' ability to do so as well.

Talk to me when you've had coffee at the kitchen table with a police officer as they ask you if them clearly and knowingly breaking the law the day before was "right" because the ends justified the means.

Well I never broke the so called law. TBH most cops don't even get the chance. This is real life NOT Hollywood.

I never even saw a large cache of drugs.Few dime bags and pipes is all.

The most a perp ever had that I voucher ed was 500 bucks. Really think most cops will risk 100k job for 500 bucks? lol

The roommate who broke the law I wonder what he did? Take extra coffee break! (technically a work rule violation not a law)

Again most cops don't even get the daily opportunity to break laws or be corrupt. I am still waiting for my opportunity!


And wastelander got yelled at from me before..he isn't pro cop. But he does attempt to understand and judge each incident with empathy. I always ask'what would you do?" Mind you most civilians have unrealistic ideas of science, physics and reality to answer the question unbiased.

[MMX2010]

(01-25-2015 11:49 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I shouldn't have to be afraid of police presence, especially when I have done no wrong. Even if I have committed some infraction, I should not have to FEAR the police. Yet it exists.

Maybe I am paranoid...

Have you watched the "Flex Your Rights" series on YouTube? My personal fear of cops shrunk dramatically after I watched the series. You can argue that my fear reduction is just naivety, and that no solution is perfect, but acquiring the skill of "talking to police officers without giving in to them" was instrumental in reducing my fear.

[jimukr104]

(01-26-2015 12:14 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:49 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I shouldn't have to be afraid of police presence, especially when I have done no wrong. Even if I have committed some infraction, I should not have to FEAR the police. Yet it exists.

Maybe I am paranoid...

Have you watched the "Flex Your Rights" series on YouTube? My personal fear of cops shrunk dramatically after I watched the series. You can argue that my fear reduction is just naivety, and that no solution is perfect, but acquiring the skill of "talking to police officers without giving in to them" was instrumental in reducing my fear.

But part of the job of police is to cause fear. Relief for law abiding people and fear from the thugs that would attempt to do crime. If cops didn't make criminals fear them than thugs would do bad shit 24/7 right in front of cops. It is like the bad kid fearing the teacher will take away playtime!

[Enigma]

(01-26-2015 12:08 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Pro-cop? That's pretty funny. Everywhere else on the internet I'm considered a borderline anarchist with dangerous views but here I'm "pro-cop."

I'm sorry you lived with an obviously bad cop, but you're letting it bleed through and color your analysis. The cop in this video was justified and I don't see how any reasonable person could argue otherwise.

If it turns out the gun didn't exist, or if they planted it and there's more to this story I'll recant that, but at this point you and Slim Shady have gone beyond skepticism and revealed your biases.

You're changing your story now.

First, we didn't know what the job was like and wanted cops to die, now interaction with one "bad cop" is making me biased. It's funny because your comments aren't really much different than the ones I just referenced.

In reality, I've interacted with dozens of other cops over the same time period. The mindset is throughout all of law enforcement. Even the ones who aren't actively "bad" have the same "us vs. them" mentality. Even if they don't bend or break the rules themselves, they won't say anything about the officers that do and will even defend them when necessary.

[MMX2010]

(01-26-2015 12:17 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

But part of the job of police is to cause fear. Relief for law abiding people and fear from the thugs that would attempt to do crime. If cops didn't make criminals fear them than thugs would do bad shit 24/7 right in front of cops. It is like the bad kid fearing the teacher will take away playtime!

I agree with that, but I think individuals who have too-strong fear of police, especially if I agree with them that they never do anything wrong, can benefit from acquiring the "how to talk to cops, without unduly surrendering to them" skill.

So when Slim Shady suggested he was just paranoid, I suggested that maybe he doesn't know how to talk to cops.

[TheWastelander]

You people want to see a bad shoot? I'll show you a bad shoot. Graphic video ahead:

This is the kind of shit I'm against.

Do any of you even know who James Boyd was?

Did you know that the cops who killed him have recently been charged with murder?

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01...rs_ch.html

Quote:

Albuquerque police officers charged with murder of homeless camper James Boyd

Two Albuquerque police officers have been charged with murder in the March killing of a homeless camper, a shooting that generated sometimes violent protests around the city and sparked a federal investigation, prosecutors said Monday.

SWAT team member Dominique Perez and former Detective Keith Sandy will each face a single count of open murder in the death of 38-year-old James Boyd, Second District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said. Open murder allows prosecutors to pursue either first-degree or second-degree murder charges.

Police said Perez and Sandy fatally shot Boyd, who was holding a knife, during an hourslong standoff in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains. Video from an officer's helmet camera showed Boyd, who had struggled with mental illness, appearing to surrender when officers opened fire.

This is police militarization at it worst and finally people who care about this issue might get a win against real sadists in law enforcement.

But no, let's continue to tear down cops who make rational, legal and moral decisions instead.

[DrewP]

(01-25-2015 11:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:45 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

He threatened his ex and showed up to the wedding at THAT very church where she was and where the video takes place with a gun, no less.

Are you serious?

Maybe she was lying? Maybe he goes to that church also?

Interesting that her word is taken as truth on a forum where women are accused of and assumed as lying in almost every other news story posted here.

Dude, the argument is over whether the cop should have been patting this guy down. Obviously, any claim of a threat has to be taken seriously. An officer can't just ignore her complaint because she could potentially be lying.

[MMX2010]

(01-26-2015 12:23 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Even if they don't bend or break the rules themselves, they won't say anything about the officers that do and will even defend them when necessary.

You're probably not aware of the contradiction you hold.

On the one hand, you rationally respect when minorities say, "Don't lump us in with them. Don't presume we're all like that."

On the other hand, when a police officer refuses to voluntarily sully his department, (which would invite others to "lump him in with the rest of them", you presume that it's moral weakness or power-hunger on his part. It doesn't occur to you that he simply doesn't want to be "lumped in with the rest of them".

[Malekhit]

first off he started to run when he was about to be handcuffed then when he was running he instantly turned to police officer and picked something from ground it could be anything. Officer did split second decision to shoot him instead of risking his life. Did the suspect deserve to die, no but you don't run from police officer if you have nothing to hide.... Therefore officer was right in that instance.

[Enigma]

(01-26-2015 12:13 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Well I never broke the so called law. TBH most cops don't even get the chance. This is real life NOT Hollywood.

I never even saw a large cache of drugs.Few dime bags and pipes is all.

The most a perp ever had that I voucher ed was 500 bucks. Really think most cops will risk 100k job for 500 bucks? lol

The roommate who broke the law I wonder what he did? Take extra coffee break! (technically a work rule violation not a law)

Again most cops don't even get the daily opportunity to break laws or be corrupt. I am still waiting for my opportunity!


And wastelander got yelled at from me before..he isn't pro cop. But he does attempt to understand and judge each incident with empathy. I always ask'what would you do?" Mind you most civilians have unrealistic ideas of science, physics and reality to answer the question unbiased.

Hmm, I'm confused about what you're talking about here. When I say "break the law", I don't mean they took a kilo of cocaine home with them.

By "ends justified the means", I mean that they violated someone's rights in pursuing a case. It wasn't some horrific thing, which is why I still consider them a "good" cop. But it just goes to show that even someone with overall good intentions and a strong knowledge of law will make mistakes and bend or break rules in the course of doing their job.

Does that make them a bad person? In many instances, no. But the problem is that their is no accountability. Even when an officer is far and away wrong, the "Blue Shield" will protect them. And that same system is what creates this toxic atmosphere and trickle down effect where police think and know they can get away with things.

Combined with too much power and police militarization, and you have serious problems. We just keep getting more and more laws while the police use more and more force.

[Enigma]

(01-26-2015 12:29 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

You're probably not aware of the contradiction you hold.

On the one hand, you rationally respect when minorities say, "Don't lump us in with them. Don't presume we're all like that."

On the other hand, when a police officer refuses to voluntarily sully his department, (which would invite others to "lump him in with the rest of them", you presume that it's moral weakness or power-hunger on his part. It doesn't occur to you that he simply doesn't want to be "lumped in with the rest of them".

Great, let's turn this into a race thread

Police officers are government employed civil servants sworn to uphold and protect the law. If you can't see why they should be held to a different standard than civilians who happen to share the same skin color, I'm not even sure what to say.

It's literally their job to keep people from breaking the law, whether it's their coworker or not.

EDIT: But for the record, I haven't said anything about "minorities" and I don't see where anyone else has either.

[Peregrine]

Cops sticking up for cops falls under the category of "it is what it is". You'll never have a day or place where that's not the case, regardless of platitudes about upholding the law.

[WanderingSoul]

That James Boyd clip made me a bit sick to my stomach. I never heard about it before.

That's the type of shit there should be riots over and stupid fucking Nancy Grace covering on her show for the next 12 months.

I hope they hang those cops. That was straight murder.

[TheWastelander]

(01-26-2015 12:59 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

That James Boyd clip made me a bit sick to my stomach. I never heard about it before.

That's the type of shit there should be riots over and stupid fucking Nancy Grace covering on her show for the next 12 months.

I hope they hang those cops. That was straight murder.

No racial angle to exploit so the national news media doesn't give a fuck about these cops acting like Einsatzgruppen.

[MMX2010]

(01-26-2015 12:47 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Great, let's turn this into a race thread

Police officers are government employed civil servants sworn to uphold and protect the law. If you can't see why they should be held to a different standard than civilians who happen to share the same skin color, I'm not even sure what to say.

It's literally their job to keep people from breaking the law, whether it's their coworker or not.

EDIT: But for the record, I haven't said anything about "minorities" and I don't see where anyone else has either.

My apologies for using the race-analogy. I chose it because it's the most vivid and obvious "Don't lump us in with them." analogy I could think of. (And I know this forum has suffered from race-baiting. I should've been more precise and considerate.)

I don't accept that it's the job of police to keep people from breaking the law. I accept that it's their job to arrest individuals accused of breaking the law.

So when a police officer looks the other way when his partner bends the rules a little bit, I don't see that as a dereliction of duty, because "no one" - (meaning "not enough people", not literally No One) - is complaining about the rule-bending.

I accept that rule-bending is "necessary" to catch criminals, even as I somberly realize that sometimes innocent people suffer due to the rule-bending.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-25-2015 11:20 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

As much as I think a not insignificant number of these police shootings are unjustified abuses from a militarized police full of power-tripping flunkies, this one isn't such a case.

They found a gun on the guy which is clearly visible in this higher-resolution version of the video.

Yeah - the cops are getting militarized - no doubt about it and many people believe it's all normal.

Now in this case, if something heavy like a gun fell down on the street, then the cop would know it as he was there and the impact on the pavement is rather specific. Letting him go with a loaded gun while other civilians are around is rather risky. Yes - there may be some super-cops around who could have dealt with it better, but that kind of demand is unrealistic. The action for one seems to be justified.

And even if it were no gun, but another heavy object that fell to the ground - if you think it is a gun you have to treat it similarly especially if the guy does not stop and runs away with it while being able to turn around and start shooting at any moment - keep in mind that there are civilians around the area and if the perp missed then and shot a little girl everyone would be screaming: "Why didn't the cop shoot him before?"

And that homeless man shooting is what I mean by militarization. There was no reason even to point a gun at the guy - he is homeless for God's sake - what he gonna do - pull out an AK47?

[lskdfjldsf]

Militarized police officers fall into two categories:

1. Guys who couldn't hack it in the real military and never bothered to serve. They see a generation of soldiers coming back and being glorified by the media, the general public, and treated as heroes. Service as police officers carries the same honor and prestige for these guys even though there's a complete disconnect between what they're actually doing and how they think others should view them.
2. Guys who actually were in the military, but saw little or no action on deployments. You grow up training and hoping for combat, but your unit didn't deploy, or you were stuck as a fobbit in Camp Taji or the Greenzone. Not being authorized to wear the CIB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Infantryman_Badge) is a source of existential pain for them, resulting in a constant need to prove oneself in situations with the potential for danger (very different than actual dangerous situations)

The sale of military equipment to police forces is nothing new. After WW1, the Thompson SMG was issued to police in large numbers. After WW2 and Korea, Jeeps, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, and thin-skinned APC's were issued to police. After Vietnam, the M16 and M113 APC. What has changed throughout history though, and what makes the present time so different compared to other post-war periods, is the mentality of the police; the internet age of narcissism and the need to leverage this experience for pussy and respect, when you otherwise wouldn't have any.

[Chocolate Porsche]

(01-25-2015 11:28 PM)Goldhawkstar Wrote:  

Anyone know if he died? I looked at several articles, no mention of his condition.

I only assume...

He is just sleeping

[Sir Vigorous]

(01-25-2015 11:48 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Also part of the job is to protect the public. Having a known criminal run off armed isn't safe for whomever he runs into.

So someone deserves the death penalty for being a criminal and having a gun in public. That's not how justice works.

For some reason people believe that cops should act with deadly force BEFORE a perp does something or shows a dangerous action or makes a threat. This is a fundamentally flawed way to go about justice.

I agree it is very dangerous for a cop to have to wait for the perp to do something but you can't just go around assuming someone is going to shoot you and give them the death penalty based off of your assumption. By rule the perp should have the first move otherwise you don't know if he is a murderous criminal, or a dumb kid who is scared and ran. It is clear as day the cop shoots AFTER the suspect turned back around. Now he is shooting a fleeing suspect, which according to the OP is illegal. This was an unjustified shooting.

Who believes the kid was gonna stop again turn around and shoot down the cop? I don't think so, but noone knows. No one knows cause they killed him before he did it. They charged and convicted him of shooting a police officer and executed him on the spot. Cops should be TRAINED to be in a safe position to be in the best position in case a perp turns violent.

[TonySandos]

(01-26-2015 09:51 AM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  

So someone deserves the death penalty for being a criminal and having a gun in public. That's not how justice works.

Do the bystanders deserve to be randomly fired on if he chose to do so?
Does the cop deserve to be shot if the running man said fuck it and did a wild west on him?
Is it plausible that the cop was under threat of being fired on the entire time from the drop to his first round fired?(he was)


You guys need to think before throwing out these high-hearted sounding platitudes about "justice".

-----------------

Watching the video I found:

-The armed man drops what clearly is a silver/chrome, large pistol. Not only does he drop it twice, but he possibly drops it three times during the time leading up to the cop firing the first bullet.

-He swings on the cop with a backhanded strike before running

-The cop fired five times, appearing to hit him with (what I guess is) the second and fifth bullets

-The pistol is retrieved from under the man's torso on the right side by a visibly empty handed cop kneeling next to him

-The cop that made the shooting grabs retrieves the pistol from the opposite side of the embankment after the kneeling cop throws it
------------------------------------------

Why all the events taking place were justified:

-all threats have to be investigated seriously
-an assault shows willingness to inflict violence
-you can't investigate a scene or provide aid if your rear is vulnerable
-a crowd is a potentially volatile situation. that's taught in police, military and even ems
-from the cops perspective, he probably saw himself under threat until shooting was over.

[Dr. Howard]

Bad cops or good cops, the two videos in this thread show us something we have never had in our lifetimes. Body Cameras. Like reviewing calls in a sports game, incidents like this can be reviewed with objective eyes.

In the first video, without that footage, the cop would have been in trouble for being white and shooting a fleeing black person. Without the second video another homeless death would have been swept under the rug.

It seems like video watches the watchmen.

[jimukr104]

There is no training to be in a safe position EXCEPT to be in a safe position. I don't think the public wants cops approaching them behind bullet proof glass.

But in any case that isn't practical in a random street incident. You are again doing what I said.. not dealing with the realities or logistics of law enforcement or confrontation.

Better solution..Don't run from cops and try to pick up a weapon.

Also shooting a fleeing suspect is legal if the guy is armed. That is considered enough evidence that the likelihood of a crime is going to be committed or at least a danger to the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

There are other laws on the book that state that anything that happens from the actions of someone committing a crime is a crime and the responsibility of the perp.

Example: bank robbers run away and accidentally crash into another car , that then crashes into another car and kills the passengers. Normally it be an accident but the bank robbers are charged with the deaths of the car accident.

Quote:

Militarized police officers fall into two categories:

1. Guys who couldn't hack it in the real military and never bothered to serve. They see a generation of soldiers coming back and being glorified by the media, the general public, and treated as heroes. Service as police officers carries the same honor and prestige for these guys even though there's a complete disconnect between what they're actually doing and how they think others should view them.
2. Guys who actually were in the military, but saw little or no action on deployments. You grow up training and hoping for combat, but your unit didn't deploy, or you were stuck as a fobbit in Camp Taji or the Greenzone. Not being authorized to wear the CIB

LOL, what you said makes very little sense. It isn't the cops that are militarizing it is the dept and squads that they work in. It is top-down NOT reverse.

plus I don't know any cops who couldn't hack the military and became cops. Anyone can join the military , and many can't wait to get out so they can join the police. Police is a career, while military is only a career for the top officers who make promotion and a small amount of enlisted. But officers in the military don't see much action in the rear.

I do know a few guys who did 20 in the military and then joined police. Lets see, in some dept only 1 in 1000 gets selected for police and in military almost every able body gets accepted..gee what is more prestigious?

BTW in the top 10 lists of prestige usually I see police, fire, scientist, nurse, doctor, and military officer. Enlisted isn't seen as prestigious. That theory is debunked!

As for guys joining who were ex military; there are many but they all have to start as rookies and are = to everyone else.

In NYPD people join ESU (swat) because it is a lateral promotion to detective(extra pay) and they get to sleep like firemen until needed. Most have no military training. Actually paramedic backgrounds are more desirable since they do rescue!

[Sir Vigorous]

This is scary. If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die. Apparently having a gun means your immediately gonna use it. Which seems contrary to what 2nd amenders usually say. I guess only certain types of people can carry weapons.

"Do the bystanders deserve to be randomly fired on if he chose to do so?"

He didn't choose to do so though. you can't assume that he would either. What you're doing is ensuring a tragedy. "Better him than me." Noone seems to think that it's sad a man lost his life maybe simply because he was scared and made a bad decision to run from cops? That sure tragedy is better than this strange possibility that the perp decides to run to the nearest grocery store and blow random peoples heads off?