General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow shooting an Unarmed 13yr old Boy became legal
This really shocked me to find out
Once the officer has decided to arrest, detain or perform an investigatory stop - the Citizen's Rights to Due Process Ends at that point.
And I learned an new Buzz Phrase - "Waste Band Shootings"
That seems pretty straightforward from a public perspective, because it is a I-know-it-when-I-see-it criteria. The court in Graham v. Connor found that an objective standard based on Fourth Amendment seizure jurisprudence was more applicable to police use of force, since the civilians was essentially being seized, and thus ruled:
Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garners analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard, rather than under a substantive due process approach.
https://medium.com/p/74a4da37a0ae
The gives police here in Calif a lot of wiggle room because ALL investigations of Officer Involved Shootings are kept secret - BY LAW
Its only in a few cases around the country where citizens have video taped police actions that these actions are ever challenged
My advice to American Citizens is once you see officers - START RECORDING
The life you save my be your child's
TBF
(32,060 posts)we gave up a lot under the Patriot Act, but some of it is just police procedure and how the courts have shaped it that we should all know about. Thanks for the OP.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Not for a second to minimize what the Patriot Act has wrought, but most of this shit was pioneered and instituted in the Drug War. The 4th Amendment was pretty much dead long before 2001, thanks to creative shit like asset "forfeiture". This puts a finer point on it, but this has been going on for decades.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)LEO's get to buy APC's and other nifty toys, private jails get filled and corporations make huge profits, judges get bribed to find every kid guilty, drug cartels literally print money.
The rest of us lose our civil liberties a little with each passing day.
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The officers Motives are completely irrelavent
TBF
(32,060 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)to you when you have an encounter with them. That's why they're so cocky all the time, and they routinely lie and cover up for each other. I agree with the OP, the only things we have to defend ourselves against them are our video phones, and they've even got a law against recording cops now. We're fighting an uphill battle against law enforcement. They're just as much the enemy as the criminals; in fact they very often are criminals themselves.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Whole criminal activity from drugs to prostitutes. Here in Ohio they let known criminals run loose because they use them for informants. So these criminals control whole villages. So how to handle it? They will not arrest themselves and if anyone stands up to them they are harassed and arrested
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)Corruption is rampant in this country, and it goes all the way to the top. It's so bad that when we see it, we have to figure out who is honest enough to trust with the information, otherwise either nothing will be done about it or it will come back and we'll have to pay the consequences for reporting it. A good man is especially hard to find in the government and the legal system, especially.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)"I was performing a Citizens Arrest and he reached for his waste"
I was in fear he had a weapon is all they have to say to LEGALLY Gun people Down in the streets
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I have always told my kids to stay away from cops. "If you ever find yourself in a group where illegal activities might be taking place, get the hell out of there pronto." Obey all traffic laws so a cop won't stop you. Just stay the eff away from cops. All sons are grown now and none of them have ever had a brush with the law, except in a couple no-fault auto accidents. And I will say it here... stay the fuck away from cops.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)I don't have anything to do with them, even socially. I don't trust them and I talk to people I don't trust, at least in real life. I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say on tv or anywhere else.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I'm going straight to hell if you're counting the internet.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)Orrex
(63,212 posts)I'm not asking about the recently slain child nor about the cop who shot him. I'm asking about procedure.
Given your apparently authoritative knowledge of the subject, I look forward to your succinct, simple and well-supported answer.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Ask questions later
My question to you is did you read the entire article cited
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Cops are trained to use deadly force only if they perceive a deadly threat to themselves, their partner, or the public, also, cops aren't trained to shoot to kill, they're trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.
Are there bad cops out there that use force too quickly? Yes. Do police depts. try to cover up a bad officer involved shooting? Once again, yes. But the majority of the nations police forces are just trying to do a difficult job and every cop I've ever worked with or interacted with, has no desire to ever have to draw their weapon and shoot someone.
Most cops will go through their whole career without ever drawing their firearm, much less shooting someone.
But your saying that cops are directed to shoot first and ask questions later is patently false and unless you can provide links or proof of that, then your credibility is in question.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)33% of ALL police shootings involve UNARMED Citizens
http://m.chron.com/news/article/One-in-three-police-shootings-involve-unarmed-1651275.php
Read some of Gelhaus's own writing on what a "Percieved Threat" can be. Its only limited by the police officer's immagination as his own writings describe
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Further, it is sloppy and lazy to post a link to a six page article without citing a relevant passage. You are, in effect, outsourcing your research responsibilities to anyone unfortunate enough to read your post, and this is at least the third time that I've seen you try this trick in the past 24 hours.
If you have statistics from somewhere within that article that support your claim that "33% of ALL police shootings involved UNARMED Citizens," then it is up to you to provide it. It's not the reader's responsibility to make up for your half-assed argument.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Other studies asses the number at 20% which is still completely unacceptable
Defend that
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Again, you are asking me to do your research for you, which is intellectually dishonest.
Post an excerpt of these "other studies" that supports your claim, and then provide a link so that readers can review those studies. Your failure to provide even minimal documentation of your claims is lazy, sloppy and irresponsible.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)LE is not trained to shoot to kill, that's a fucking Hollywood myth, just like shooting the gun out of a criminals hand,
LE is trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.
There are unjustified police shootings, I'm not denying that, I'm also not denying that depts. will attempt to justify a bad shoot, that's fact, but to say that police policy is to shoot first and ask questions later is a pure lie.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Because he is an attorney who investigates officer involved shootings for a living
And even he is advocating against the practice - that was the point of his article
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)police policies are not to shoot first, I know of no LEA with that policy, if that were true, not only would the DoJ be all over it, every civil rights group would be screaming bloody murder lead by the ACLU, an org. I have the highest regards for.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Describe the "Perceived Threat"
And I'm paraphrasing here
"Just as when your hunting you will not see the whole animal"
Now tell me 1 Gun Safety/Hunting Instructor that would say that. It has always been stressed to be proof positive about what you are shooting at BEFORE you pull the trigger
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)perceived threat is recognizing a threat and being prepared to deal with it, not perceive a threat and shoot, although there are cops that will do so, but in no way is that any LEA's policy.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)They are instructing officer to shoot if they have a future percieved threat
And Cops are being CLEARED of Wrong Doing and are following procedure for doing so
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)But you have your mind made up and no one, not even those of us in the know, are going to change your mind.
Have a great day, btw, I'm now skeptical about the shooting of the 13 yo, I think that cop has some splaining to do.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)Orrex
(63,212 posts)You have made this claim several times and havne't supported it. Who is giving these instructions?
If you have an actual source for this claim, then you need to provide that source, otherwise you're asking us to take your word for it.
And if you're asking us to take your word for it, then you really need to be aware that your word doesn't carry much weight at this point.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Connor,12th e significance of that intent gave way to the "objective reasonableness"
standard of the Fourth Amendment in cases where
"seizures" are deemed to have occurred.13
One of the obvious problems created by a reasonableness standard
is determining the appropriate level of reasonableness. Research
results have indicated that police officers, especially street
officers, are able to assess what is good police work and when force is
excessive.'4 This may explain why most accusations of excessive force
are denied at the department level.
http://deadlyforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Reasonable-Man.pdf
http://www.policek9.com/html/react.html
Orrex
(63,212 posts)This was your claim:
The first citation is 20 years old and discusses how "reasonableness" is determined as it pertains to police conduct. It specifically does not indicate that "they are instructing officers to shoot if they have a future perceived threat."
The second citation is more recent but gives only a very general suggstions about how cops might respond to suspects who are wearing body armor. It specifically does not indicate that "they are instructing officers to shoot if they have a future perceived threat."
In short, the citations don't support your claim, nor do the excerpted documents themselves.
You're getting closer, in that you're actually providing citations, more or less. Now you need to work on providing relevant and supporting citations.
Care to try again?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Help is available
Any claim you might have had of legitamacy has gone out the window
The citations that you offered clearly do not corroborate your claim. The sticking point here is not my alleged "denial issues" but rather your inability to formulate and support an argument.
You're very eager to make wild claims about police procedure, and you post these as if you have some authority to speak on the subject, but you don't actually seem that knowledgeable, you don't back up your assertions in any real way, and you don't answer reasonable requests for clarification.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)except for the one time I had to shoot a doberman that was attacking one of my team members.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I get this message that says Parse Error on line ..........
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this thinking that police policy is to shoot first and ask questions later is so stupid.
Yes, there are cops out there who think like that, and they need to be removed, but to my knowledge, there are no LEA's, local, state or federal who have that policy, and to be pushing that line is unacceptable and really gets my dander up so excuse my passion on this.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And there are plenty of those cops who ACT on that thought. And the department, by default, finds no wrongdoing. The union, by default, refuses to allow their dismissal. The courts, by default, refuse to convict, or give only light sentences on the very rare occasions a cop is convicted - and remember the case has to actually make it to a judge first!
So long as good cops cover for the bad cops, all cops are bad cops. A bad cop is a threat to public safety and well-being. And if the departments and their "buddies" aren't going to fix the problem, then what recourse does the public have to protect themselves, do you think?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but I do disagree that all cops are bad cops.
The attitudes that defined what happened to Officer Serpico in the NYPD is still prevalent today, but that's starting to sloooowly change, not fast enough for me, and I'll be long retired before there is a noticeable difference, but it is starting to change.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Isn't harboring a fugitive, or aiding and abetting a crime? Those people who do so are criminals, yes? Okay so then, so are the officers and departments who cover for and protect rabid cops.
I'm sure there are one or two officers in every precinct who do do their best, and are decent people. Sadly they are outweighed by the pressure of "go along to get along" and "you'll never get that promotion if..."
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)than at the local or state level, we operate under much more stringent policies than local/state LEA's, we have true oversight, not like the local/state agencies that will investigate themselves, which is the recipe for the coverup.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Is a liar
I think we all here need some thing a little more substantive then your ranting to believe you
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)There is no such policy in any police regulations period.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)just like we have started seeing strip searches and anal probes all over country for minor infractions of the law
VADem1980
(53 posts)Cops are all scumbags, worse than most of the so-called criminals!
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)But I've been called a lot worse by far tougher people.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I love bacon, eggs, sausage, hash browns and toast with jelly, and a glass of orange juice in the morning. Yum yum.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but it's hard to walk away when I see bullshit like this being pedaled.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and I'm going to take your advice and walk away from this.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Please show documentation indicating that police are being instructed to shoot first.
Given your exhaustive knowledge of the subject, I'm sure that it wil be easy for you to provide this relevant citation.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Honestly this guy certainly qualifies as an expert in this subject
Orrex
(63,212 posts)That's how a straw man works. That's how propaganda works. That how intellectual dishonesty works.
You're making slow progress, in that you managed to cite a semi-relevant passage, rather than demanding that your readers do your homework for you. Now you simply need to work on selecting material that actually supports your argument in a reasonable, intellectually honest fashion.
Good luck!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I'm sure the first question asked is "Where is the Gun"
You lost that argument
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Why don't you ask them, if you're having trouble figuring it out?
And given your history of hidden posts, missing citations and unanswered questions, you're in no position to tell anyone that they've lost an argument with you. In fact, you haven't even articulated an argument.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But go ahead, grab your gun, see what happens, then you'll know for sure.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)we've become a nation of uniform worshipers that believes anyone in uniform is a hero, and as such exempt from due process and commensurate sanctions. Remember the inappropriate response to Occupy. The unwarranted and unpunished use of pepper spray (chemical weapon) against innocent people exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition their government has been abridged and abolished. We are on the path to self destruction.
Because we have abandoned our Constitutional rights, we have ceased to be the country our founders envisioned. It looks like bin Laden is the real winner.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)As far as I can tell, virtually all police action shootings are placed into the "justifiable homicide" category.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)And by the criteria most police dept. Have adopted - they are
Like I said I can't wait for this to be applied to CCW permit holders. People can be gunned down for cutting some one off in traffic
hooptie
(25 posts)something like murder, or manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Approximately ... NEVER.
mountain grammy
(26,621 posts)Not only have the courts allowed and encouraged the police to overreact, new laws have allowed non law enforcement civilians to overreact. We shoot first and ask questions later and that's ok. The laws and courts have given us a lawless society. Amazing
Back to the wild, wild west!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)This is going to be horrific
mountain grammy
(26,621 posts)and I agree.. this is already horrific as the body count of innocent civilians rises daily.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)"ALL investigations of Officer Involved Shootings are kept secret - BY LAW"
These officers are PUBLIC SERVANTS and what they do IN OUR NAME canNOT be kept SECRET. It belongs to US, the citizens, who pay for their services.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Can you think of anything more disturbing then that
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)These are PUBLIC employees and everything that they do should be open to the PUBLIC, which is their EMPLOYER. It's like hiring a lawyer who keeps everything secret until the verdict comes in.