Police are people, too

[DVS]

"Well, I'm not saying that she deserved to be raped. Oh no! I'm just saying that wearing a short skirt played a part. Let's not talk about the rapist before we get the facts straight: She did wear a short skirt. She didn't phone her friend to pick her up. She did have quite some drinks. Everything plays a part in how and why something happens. But I'm really not saying that she deserved to be raped. No, no, but please, look at the bigger picture."

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. LOL, could you explain what you mean in simpler terms? OK, I know what you're trying to say but it isn't going to work. If you read my previous post, that should clarify what I mean. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it yet again. What you are stating isn't escalation.

 

[DVS]

Can we please not associate the term "good" with "not killing someone"?

"Hey, son, how was your boyscout meeting?"
"I did get my good behavior medal."
"What did you do?"
"I didn't kill anyone this month."




So, because there is a fair percentage of good cops, there is no percentage of bad cops?




So...because a video might only show a part it's better to have no video at all?



But what is your consequence of this logic?
a) "Oh, well, another one down; no wonder, after all, that cop got hit the day before by a black guy, so it's just payback".
b) "The psychological support and surveilance for cops must be improved."

This is actually somehow funny. At the start of your posting you're blaming the public for getting a wrong impression about cops and here you are excusing the cops for getting a wrong impression about civilians.

I don't respond to posts where my post is cut up into pieces. And the way you have twisted my words around, why would I want to waste my time even replying? LOL, you aren't trying to carry on any kind of discussion at all. You are just trying to piss me off because I don't believe what you believe. Frankly, some of your statements don't even deserve a reply. Sorry about that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Emphasis added:

you might not have been the one who said that, but because you said homicidal criminal, it seemed to fit. I've had multiple people berate me for my opinion and I don't like it when someone cuts up my post to quote one sentence, when the very next sentence might clarify what I said in the quoted one. It's happened before and I really don't have the time to go back several pages to see what I actually did say to see if it has happened again. Trust me, some people do snip up posts to make them say what they want, so I just wanted to make that clear. I don't care to respond to posts that have been cut up.

If you look at it from my point of view, you are doing the same thing to me, by cutting up my posts. If you don't feel that way, that's too bad. I do feel that way. People twist my posts around enough to say things I didn't say so I don't need any more headaches about that. You can say it's hypocritical if you want, of course I see it differently.

I think I'm one of the only two in this thread that tries to see things with an open mind. Everybody else seems to be calling the police homicidal criminal, including you. I think it's sad that people who should believe in innocent until proven guilty doesn't want to give the police the same right.

I often respond to people inline ("cut up"), especially when the discussion gets long; it lets me respond point by point. I also link back to the original post/s that I'm quoting, so people can easily check back for the original context. In all my time on Literotica this is the first time anybody's ever complained about it, and as soon as I became aware that you objected to it, I stopped doing it. If I'd known it was going to annoy you, I wouldn't have done it, and I apologise for any annoyance that it caused.

But I do not accept that this is comparable to what you did, putting words in my mouth that I never said. And now you're doing it again! The only places where I've used the phrase "homicidal criminal" in this discussion are in connection with one specific person: Michael Slager, the guy who shot Walter Scott. I have never used those words for "the police" in general, and it doesn't reflect my viewpoint.

Having seen you around on the boards, I don't take you for the sort of person who would deliberately put false words in my mouth. But the fact that you're still doing this suggests that you're too blinded by your own assumptions about me even to hear what I'm actually saying. That isn't even close to "open-minded".

Unless you're willing to retract and apologise for misrepresenting me, and make an effort to not do it again, I'm done talking to you.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Sorry I lost you, but I can't make it any clearer. Escalation doesn't mean he caused himself to be shot. It just means he escalated the situation. ANYTHING someone does that isn't what the cop said to do or expected of him is escalating the situation. A weapon doesn't have to be involved. He simply ran. That's escalating the situation, plain and simple. How many times do I have to say this before everybody gets it?

His friend stayed in the car and he is alive. The driver ran and he is dead. That very well could have been partly because he ran. The cop thought he had a reason to run because who in their right mind would run from police without good reason? The cop caught up with him and they had a scuffle. After the scuffle, he ran again and that's when the cop shot him. If he had stayed in the car like his friend did, it's a good possibility that none of that would have happened.

And don't say he ran because he feared for his life, because his friend just sat in the car. He didn't seem to be afraid for his life. Oh, by the way, did I say his friend is still alive?

Now, if you don't understand this now, I can't help you. You need to go to someone else and have them explain it to you. I think I've explained the process of escalation enough times.

It might well be a reason to suspect that driver had worse problems than a traffic stop. That does not mean that it's a posing a danger to the cop or anyone else. I don't see how it could be misunderstood as threatening especially if you can scruffle with them and they keep running from you.

While there are days when I can totally understand the feeling of "people should do as I say or I'll just shoot them", it's still not a good policy.

As for the driver running while the rider stayed, I'll repeat once more:
People react differently for a multitude of reason that are not very rational seen from the outside
In the nineties I spent some time with a teenager who would dive head first under a table anytime he heard sirens. Didn't look very rational here but his recent experiences in the war in former Yugoslavia made it quite understandable.
We'd dive after him and hold his hand and eventually he stopped doing that but I think he and I would still have reacted very differently to a traffic stop.
This is just one example.
Not everyone out there is a perfect picture of mental stability and health. It shouldn't get you killed when it can't reasonably be misunderstood as threatening someone seriously.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[BiBunny]

Ok, maybe I missed something, but I'm still trying to figure out how a man making a stupid decision--which is something we all do, probably on a regular basis--justifies his being shot in the back? That's an incredibly disproportionate reaction if you ask me.

 

[Primalex]

you aren't trying to carry on any kind of discussion at all.

Why would I want to discuss with you? Your very first post, dismissing even the results of the investigation of the Department of Justice, is all I need to know about your point of view. I'm here to write where you write nonsense. And it really doesn't matter to me whether you reply or not.

 

[Primalex]

Its inevitable sometimes people will hold different opinions. There is great deal to be learned from this IMO, if one is brave enough to.

You don't know many people, do you?

 

[Bramblethorn]

http://gawker.com/commissioner-cops-failed-to-get-freddie-gray-help-mul-1700154032

Baltimore man Freddie Gray died of a broken neck incurred while being transported in a police vehicle:

On Thursday, a police union attorney revealed Gray was not buckled in while being transported, as is department policy. Since 2004, BPD has twice been found responsible for paralyzing suspects with so-called “rough rides,” where officers drive erratically while carrying unbuckled but handcuffed suspects [Gray was also in leg irons - B] to cause them injury, The Baltimore Sun reports.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...Kenna-with-her-hands-cuffed-and-legs-shackled

Natasha McKenna died after being tasered four times in Fairfax County jail. She was 5'3", 130 lbs, cuffed behind her back and in leg shackles, and had a mesh mask over her face, and outnumbered at least six to one.

edit: and elsewhere in the world, here's the time West Australian security guards cooked an Aboriginal man to death. (The "47C" mentioned in the article may be an error; other sources say 42C, i.e. 108F. But the van must have been considerably hotter, given that he had third-degree burns from the floor.)

 

[subwannabe]

I guess the moral of these stories is to not be a criminal and then you don't have to worry about any of this in the first place.

 

[KoPilot]

I guess the moral of these stories is to not be a criminal and then you don't have to worry about any of this in the first place.

I almost hope that someday a cop shoots you in the back for no reason an then posthumously we'll all get to talk about how you probably deserved it because cops never mishandle innocent people. And then because you're dead, we'll get to completely assassinate your character with no repercussions.

 

[Primalex]

I guess the moral of these stories is to not be a criminal and then you don't have to worry about any of this in the first place.

Because innocent people don't end up in the death row.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Because innocent people don't end up in the death row.

It's interesting how much faith people seem to have in how justice is carried out.
I don't know if it is something that carries over from a past when things worked better.
There is a series of articles in a big newspaper here right now, called Demons of Justice. One of the facts covered is that between 1950 and 1990, they found one case of miscarriage of justice. Since 1990 we have had at least 26 cases.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[IrisAlthea]

There are plenty of historic miscarriages of justice. They were less easy to pursue and overturn though and perhaps people challenged less, believed more, or simply toed lines 'better'. Its good its not like that now. There have been some high profile retrospective pardons in the uk, but, not much use posthumously.

I'm sure that plays a part.
The articles cover the use of expert witnesses, like therapists and social workers and some methods that have proved less than perfect.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

I guess the moral of these stories is to not be a criminal and then you don't have to worry about any of this in the first place.

Tell me again what Rekia Boyd was guilty of?

And Natasha McKenna was schizophrenic. That's not something anybody chooses, and criminalising mental illness is a big fucking problem even when the cops are decent - which these ones were not.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's interesting how much faith people seem to have in how justice is carried out.
I don't know if it is something that carries over from a past when things worked better.
There is a series of articles in a big newspaper here right now, called Demons of Justice. One of the facts covered is that between 1950 and 1990, they found one case of miscarriage of justice. Since 1990 we have had at least 26 cases.

I'm not sure that things really did work better in the past; I think these abuses still happened, but there was less awareness of them, and less willingness to question. (Or rather, less awareness of them among folk like me; I'm sure the targeted groups knew the score!)

I'd guess that a big part of that post-1990s spike has been the use of DNA testing on old evidence? Certainly there have been several US cases overturned when testing contradicted the story the jury had accepted.

I think social media has been something of a game-changer for awareness. Most of the cases I've mentioned here are things I would never have heard of through reading my usual newspapers, but Twitter has been great for learning about the world outside my comfortable bubble.

 

[midwestyankee]

Sad, but probably true.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I'm not sure that things really did work better in the past; I think these abuses still happened, but there was less awareness of them, and less willingness to question. (Or rather, less awareness of them among folk like me; I'm sure the targeted groups knew the score!)

I'd guess that a big part of that post-1990s spike has been the use of DNA testing on old evidence? Certainly there have been several US cases overturned when testing contradicted the story the jury had accepted.

I think social media has been something of a game-changer for awareness. Most of the cases I've mentioned here are things I would never have heard of through reading my usual newspapers, but Twitter has been great for learning about the world outside my comfortable bubble.

Yes, that might be. There hasn't been any specific change in the possibilities to get your case reviewed or to get legal help with it though, as far as I know.

The reviewed cases were all cases where a therapist, psychologist etc served as an expert witness.
A lot of repressed memories stuff.
Some cases where it couldn't even be proved that a crime had been comitted, but a mentally claimed to have done them after hypno therapy etc etc.

 

[Primalex]

Sad, but probably true.

The confusing part for me is not that police offers are not found guilty; the confusing part is that there is not even an indictment. What harm would come from a proper trial if the police officer is innocent anyway?

 

[midwestyankee]

The confusing part for me is not that police offers are not found guilty; the confusing part is that there is not even an indictment. What harm would come from a proper trial if the police officer is innocent anyway?

I think you already know the answer to that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

http://wonkette.com/583857/corrupt-...dy-mayor-no-a-different-corrupt-missouri-town

On April 7, Betty McCray won an election for the tiny 300 person town [Kinlock MO] with a vote count of 38-18. Yet when she showed up to her first day of work this past Thursday, city hall’s door was locked. And no one left a key under the welcome mat, in a flower pot, or in the fake rock. Undeterred she went back again, only to be thwarted by 20 police officers heroically standing tall as the 64-year-old mayor-elect advanced towards the front door... In a smooth move, incumbent Darren Small and his merry band of sore losers had the city attorney inform McCray that she was suspended due to allegations of voter fraud, a fashionable way of claiming you didn’t lose an election because you sucked at governing. The St. Louis County Board of Elections certified the results, but that didn’t stop Small, who will leave a wall streaked with fingernail marks when he’s finally removed from the building.

Not to be confused with the other Missouri election where most of City Hall (+5 of 6 police) resigned and wiped the city's computers clean when a black woman was elected.

Wonkette notes: almost everybody involved in the Kinlock thing is black, so that one's more about corruption than racism.