Police are people, too

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KoPilot]

From The Nation:

A few weeks ago, there was a shooting at my apartment building. A total of five shots were fired resulting in, thankfully, zero injuries. I was home when it happened, but live on the third floor, away from the shooter’s target. The kids downstairs, who hang out in the hallway pretty much everyday, drinking, smoking, talking shit, and selling weed, had some of their beef meet them at home. That night, I remember hearing one of them scream, “They shot me bro!”—though it seems it was probably the shock of the gunshots plus the shattering of glass from the building’s front door that made him believe he was hit. It was frightening.

However, more frightening than that is the fact that nearly every night since the shooting there has either been a police car, parked across the street with its lights flashing, or two cops posted outside my building, right at the steps, standing guard. This is supposed to be the measure that prevents further violence, but the presence of the police scares me more than the kids selling drugs or the gunshots ever did.

One day, while walking into my building, avoiding all eye contact with the two officers, I heard one of them say to other “Wanna do a vertical?” as I put my keys in the front door. A vertical is when police enter a building and go from top to bottom, scoping the place out for any potential criminal activity. I remember that these are the circumstances under which Akai Gurley was killed.

Another night, I was walking to the bodega to buy some ice cream, and as soon as I hit the bottom of the steps, still needing to walk down the hallway to get to the front door, the officers eyes were fixed on me, and they didn’t let up until I was blocks away. I feel incredibly lucky, especially days later when video surfaced of Walter Scott being shot in the back as he ran away from Officer Michael Slager in South Carolina.

Slager originally stopped Scott for driving with a broken taillight. Scott ran away, possibly fearing he would be arrested for owing back child support, and Slager chased after him. The video doesn’t show when the taser was drawn, but this interaction escalated to Slager using his taser on Scott, who managed to get away, at which point Slager drew his gun and shot at Scott eight times, hitting him with five shots. Were it not for the video taken by a local bystander, Slager’s account of the shooting—that Scott took the taser and because Slager feared for his life he had no other choice but to shoot him—would be the only account available. Now Slager has been fired and charged with murder.

That’s it, right? That’s what the movement was about? This is what justice looks like, correct? We’ve learned the mistakes from Darren Wilson killing Michael Brown, and Daniel Pantaleo killing Eric Garner, yeah? We’re going to start holding the police accountable.

I’ve said this before: there is no justice where there are dead black people. I’ll continue saying it, because if we’re satisfied with charges and potential prison time, we’ve missed the entire point of #BlackLivesMatter. This isn’t about getting “better” police, ones who exercise discretion in using force, but getting away from “needing” police altogether.

In 1966, James Baldwin wrote for The Nation: “…the police are simply the hired enemies of this population. They are present to keep the Negro in his place and to protect white business interests, and they have no other function.” This remains as true today as it was in 1966, only now we have bought into the myth of police “serving and protecting” wholesale. What do you do with an institution whose core function is the control and elimination of black people specifically, and people of color and the poor more broadly?

You abolish it. In 1964, Malcolm X told the students of Oxford Union: “You’re living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there’s got to be a change. People in power have misused it and now there has to be change and a better world has to be built. And the only way it’s going to be built is with extreme methods.” Abolishing the police is an extreme measure, but as a measure of justice, it should be our ultimate goal.

We don’t consider the abolition of police a viable position to take because we believe they’re the only thing standing between upstanding citizens and the violence of the deranged. We’re afraid of being attacked on the street, of having our homes shot at, and being left without access to equally violent retribution. But does this mean we want police, or safety and security? Safety and security are ideas, ones that may never be fully achieved, and the police are an institution that have proved themselves capable of only providing the illusion of safety and security to a select few. The bulk of their jobs has nothing to do with violence prevention. They spend most of their time doing things like Slager did in his initial contact with Scott—stopping people for broken taillights. Writing for Gawker, David Graeber of the London School of Economics says:

The police spend very little of their time dealing with violent criminals—indeed, police sociologists report that only about 10% of the average police officer’s time is devoted to criminal matters of any kind. Most of the remaining 90% is spent dealing with infractions of various administrative codes and regulations: all those rules about how and where one can eat, drink, smoke, sell, sit, walk, and drive. If two people punch each other, or even draw a knife on each other, police are unlikely to get involved. Drive down the street in a car without license plates, on the other hand, and the authorities will show up instantly, threatening all sorts of dire consequences if you don’t do exactly what they tell you.

The police, then, are essentially just bureaucrats with weapons. Their main role in society is to bring the threat of physical force—even, death—into situations where it would never have been otherwise invoked, such as the enforcement of civic ordinances about the sale of untaxed cigarettes.

Ninety percent of an officer’s time isn’t devoted to our safety, but rather to things we may find annoying (or in the case of things like untaxed cigarettes, create a black market for goods that threaten the profits of businesses), inserting the potential for violence where there is cause for none. And when it comes to preventing heinous acts of violence (or holding the perpetrators accountable) that should be condemned by all, like domestic violence and sexual assault, the police are largely ineffectual. The police are not performing the function we say they are, and there are real ways to achieve a world with less violence that don’t include the police. We simply haven’t tried. Until we invest in full employment, universal healthcare that includes mental health services, free education at every level, comprehensive sex education that teaches about consent and bodily autonomy, the decriminalization of drugs and erasure of the stigma around drug use, affordable and adequate housing, eliminating homophobia and transphobia—things that actually reduce the amount of violence we witness—I don’t want to hear about how necessary the police are. They are only necessary because we are all too willing to hide behind our cowardice and not actually put forth the effort to create a better world. It’s too extreme.

When I say, “abolish the police,” I’m usually asked what I would have us replace them with. My answer is always full social, economic, and political equality, but that’s not what’s actually being asked. What people mean is “who is going to protect us?” Who protects us now? If you’re white and well-off, perhaps the police protect you. The rest of us, not so much. What use do I have for an institution that routinely kills people who look like me, and make it so I’m afraid to walk out of my home?

My honest answer is that I don’t know what a world without police looks like. I only know there will be less dead black people. I know that a world without police is a world with one less institution dedicated to the maintenance of white supremacy and inequality. It’s a world worth imagining.

very echo chamber, such one-side, wow

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KoPilot]

HEAD of the FBI’s Anthrax Investigation Says the Whole Thing Was a SHAM

 

[subwannabe]

Regarding the South Carolina shooting, no one really knows what the result of the investigation would have been without the video but the officer would have had some major explaining to do as to why the victim had been shot in the back eight times. How could he have been in fear of being tasered while the victim obviously had his back to the officer? Given the events of the last few months it would have been very hard to give him a free pass when the story obviously didn't add up, even without the video.

 

[KoPilot]

Thoughts – Is the U.S. Still An Authoritarian National Surveillance State?

“The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of surveillance state we will have.” – Jack Balkin

Immediately following the original Snowden revelations in June 2013, I wrote a research paper inquiring into the nature of the U.S. national surveillance state with respect to the natural law treatment of human civil liberties. That paper comprises Part 1 of this research blog. At that time the research findings strongly suggested the U.S. national surveillance state was deep into authoritarian territory by using a framework provided by Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin in his work, “The Constitution in The National Surveillance State”. Famed Nobel Prize winning economist and political commentator, Paul Krugman, in his response to the Snowden revelations, also used Balkin’s framework and came to the same conclusion but has said very little about this topic since. Although, this week Krugman did say that surveillance isn’t that big of a deal.

Over the last two years many national security and surveillance revelations have been published from the Snowden archive. In addition, the nature of US government policies and practices, national security or otherwise, under the Obama administration have further clarified and worthy of examination. The objective of this research post is to revisit the original research question with the focus on the threshold component of whether the U.S. can still be characterized as an authoritarian national surveillance state. In the interest of context and concision, I will briefly touch on the following questions in this post that have already been addressed in more expansive individual posts in Part 1 that explain Jack Balkin’s framework:

What is a National Surveillance State?

What is the Foreign Intelligence Act(FISA) & National Security Letters(NSL)?

What are the three main threats national surveillance poses to our freedoms?

What is an Authoritarian Information State?

What is a Democratic Information State?

Welp, can't address the problem of police without also addressing the issue of how they know what they know, and how they figure out who meets the criteria of "criminal".

 

[Keroin]

I'm not ignorant of the arguments, I simply reject them. It's not because I lack imagination, it's because "relationships of trust" between neighbors as a visionary solution scare the ever loving fuck out of me, and no one has ever adequately explained to me why I don't have a point. Relationships of trust between neighbors are why there are still "restricted neighborhoods" to this DAY.

A government overstepping its authority AND a populace that is happy to throw one another under the bus is the perfect storm. People are always willing to throw one another under the bus.

This.

I'm fairly Pollyana about the goodness of humans but I'm not ignorant, stupid, or crazy enough to believe that simply trusting in everyone to do the right thing is a realistic possibility.

As for positive police stories, I can offer a recent one from my own little idyllic neck of the woods.

A girlfriend of mine was recently sexuality assaulted by an ex-boyfriend and shortly afterward he began stalking her. The police response to this has been nothing short of amazing and I credit them with allowing my friend to be able to sleep at night. In co-ordination with Victim's Services and the court, they had a full security system installed on her property within days (at no cost to her) and upgraded all the points of entry to her home. When she told one of the officers that she didn't want to call the police if she didn't think there was a serious threat, the response was, "No, you don't ever worry about that. You call us any time, even if you think it's nothing. We'll be there."

My friend is not rich or powerful. I've heard lots of stories like this from friends of mine, praising our local police department. I live in a beautiful, friendly, small town where hardly anyone even locks their doors and the demographics are very VERY liberal. But assholes exist everywhere.

 

[DVS]

There's good and bad in everybody and police are no different. I don't see them as the terrible evil others seem to, and I wonder how they are suppose to do their job, with such a stigma. I know, by reading some of the posts in this thread, that some of you feel that police have created their present situation. I know I won't change your opinion and trust me, you won't change mine, either. Let's just leave it at that.

All of those links that have been posted are lost on me. What's more news worthy than a white cop against a black criminal (or innocent kid, in some people's eyes). You not only find a story where a police officer shot a criminal, now they all say white officer shot a black unarmed criminal. You would be hard pressed to find a story where police are doing good things, because that just doesn't sell.

I'm not saying they don't do bad. That south Carolina situation was bad. Nobody should be shot while running away and that's exactly what happened there. I don't know why the guy ran, but the cop was totally wrong. But that's nothing like the Ferguson situation. Michael brown did not have his hands up. If you think he did, you should read the corner's report more closely. That whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing is based on a lie.

That recent Oklahoma shooting where the insurance executive playing volunteer deputy mistook his gun for his taser? That guy shouldn't have even been given a gun. He had no real training. He paid for the thrill to play cop and the guy he shot paid the price of his lack of training. Somebody tried to say the taser was made to look like a gun, and if that's true, it's a mistake. No taser should look like a deadly weapon. And I really can't see how someone would mistake a .357 magnum for a taser. Many officers keep their taser on the same side of the holster as their gun and I think that's a mistake, too. There should be no doubt what they are putting into their hand, in any given situation.

And the suspect was already face down, on the ground. He was out numbered by officers and so I don't know why that deputy thought it was necessary to taser him. You taser someone who is combative and not complying with officers. One officer had his knee on the guy's head when he was shot. I'd say he was sufficiently subdued and there was no need for anything but cuffs.

Of course, I wasn't there and so I don't know the full details, but from what I saw on the video, there was no need for him to be tasered. I think that was just more lack of training of that insurance executive playing cop. Not only should he be charged with involuntary man slaughter, the officials that allowed him to have that gun should be fired. The family of the victim should also sue the city and that deputy for a wrongful death.

 

[DVS]

Regarding the South Carolina shooting, no one really knows what the result of the investigation would have been without the video but the officer would have had some major explaining to do as to why the victim had been shot in the back eight times. How could he have been in fear of being tasered while the victim obviously had his back to the officer? Given the events of the last few months it would have been very hard to give him a free pass when the story obviously didn't add up, even without the video.

I feel the same way, but there are so many people who feel the whole thing would have been covered up. It's sad that people feel that way. We'll never know how it would have turned out, without the video. I'm just glad there was a video. It leaves no doubt. Bad cops shouldn't be out there.

 

[DVS]

This.

I'm fairly Pollyana about the goodness of humans but I'm not ignorant, stupid, or crazy enough to believe that simply trusting in everyone to do the right thing is a realistic possibility.

As for positive police stories, I can offer a recent one from my own little idyllic neck of the woods.

A girlfriend of mine was recently sexuality assaulted by an ex-boyfriend and shortly afterward he began stalking her. The police response to this has been nothing short of amazing and I credit them with allowing my friend to be able to sleep at night. In co-ordination with Victim's Services and the court, they had a full security system installed on her property within days (at no cost to her) and upgraded all the points of entry to her home. When she told one of the officers that she didn't want to call the police if she didn't think there was a serious threat, the response was, "No, you don't ever worry about that. You call us any time, even if you think it's nothing. We'll be there."

My friend is not rich or powerful. I've heard lots of stories like this from friends of mine, praising our local police department. I live in a beautiful, friendly, small town where hardly anyone even locks their doors and the demographics are very VERY liberal. But assholes exist everywhere.

You only hear about this kind of story word of mouth. It isn't news worthy, like the bad white cop who kills an innocent unarmed black man. Sensationalism sells. Violence sells. Hatred sells. Racism sells. That's our world, these days.

 

[midwestyankee]

You only hear about this kind of story word of mouth. It isn't news worthy, like the bad white cop who kills an innocent unarmed black man. Sensationalism sells. Violence sells. Hatred sells. Racism sells. That's our world, these days.

Good behavior is supposed to be the norm, not a surprise. News organizations exist to tell the world about those events that are surprising and unusual. Nothing is keeping you or anyone else from starting a good news newspaper - except the fact that nobody gives a shit about stuff that's supposed to happen. Because why should I invest time from my day to learn that things that were supposed to happen, in fact, did happen?

 

[Bramblethorn]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...e-officer-who-shot-rekia-boyd-on-trial-monday

A Cook County judge ruled prosecutors didn't prove their case — that a Chicago police detective acted recklessly when he fired into a crowd in 2012, killing 22-year-old Rekia Boyd. Judge Dennis Porter's directed verdict means the legal team for Dante Servin didn't have to put on a defense before he was acquitted of all charges...

Boyd's family said they expected bad news.

"Hell yeah, you know where we live," Boyd's godmother, Pat Jordan said. "We didn't expect nothing else. You can get away with killing black people."

Servin, now 46, was off duty when he opened fire at a group of people near Douglas Park on March 21, 2012, striking Antonio Cross in his hand and Boyd in the back of her head. Servin has said he saw Cross pull a gun, but police never recovered a weapon, and prosecutors argued Cross was holding a cellphone...

Servin's defense team, meanwhile, argued that Servin only began shooting after Cross lifted his cellphone and pointed it toward Servin as if it were a gun. According to testimony, Servin told authorities he thought he saw a gun, heard a bang and felt "something" hit the back of his head.

Thought experiment: black guy with a legal firearm fatally shoots white woman because he imagined the guy next to her had a gun. Does anybody here think he'd be walking without even having to offer a defense?

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you resist arrest or run away from a police officer, aren't you aware that it might not go down well, especially considering all the publicity over the last few months? I'm not saying they deserve capital punishment but the perpetrators have to take some responsibility for making a stupid decision.

Let me make this as simple as I can:

Shooting a fleeing person is murder. (There are some narrow exceptions that don't apply to most of the cases we've been discussing here - basically, if letting that person escape would pose an immediate threat to somebody's life.) A cop who's willing to do this is by definition a violent crook with a gun.

In the presence of a violent crook with a gun, there is no safe option. Fleeing might get you killed; hanging around them them is ALSO dangerous. Perhaps they won't murder you; perhaps they'll only shake you down for a bogus traffic fine that you can't afford to pay, or rough you up a little, or sexually assault you. Perhaps they'll do none of those things. But you don't know.

What I am saying has nothing to do with the laws but that these people should know that trying to run away or resist arrest isn't going to get them a batch of cookies from Grandma. I'm white and I wouldn't resist arrest or run away from a white officer because that would be really stupid and I might get shot and killed.

If Rekia Boyd had run from Dante Servin, she might have been alive today.

I understand that it's comforting to believe that there's always a guaranteed right way to handle these situations, that if you just follow the correct procedure it'll all turn out okay. But it's not how the world works. There is, I repeat, no safe option for a black person in the presence of an armed cop, just more and less dangerous options, and it's not always possible to tell which is which.

I'll start by admitting that there are bad cops that do bad things and they should be held accountable so that police as a whole don't get an undeserved bad wrap due to a few bad apples that admittedly do exist in probably every police department.

Do you know where the expression "bad apples" comes from? It's from a saying: "one bad apple will spoil the whole bunch".

The problem isn't just that police forces have a few violent types who are willing to commit murder if they can get away with it. It's about the brotherhood who let them believe that they can get away with it. Would Michael Slager have been so willing to murder Walter Scott if he hadn't been able to count on his fellow officers to falsify reports to cover for him?

 

[subwannabe]

Here's a revelation: why don't criminals quit bring criminals and then the police would't be trying to arrest them in the first place, there would be no crime, and we gould get rid of police departments altogether.

 

[midwestyankee]

Here's a revelation: why don't criminals quit bring criminals and then the police would't be trying to arrest them in the first place, there would be no crime, and we gould get rid of police departments altogether.

I'm really impressed with the doggedness with which you continue to hang onto the bone of blaming the victims here. It really is impressive. Dogmatic and horribly misinformed, but impressive in its tenacity nonetheless.

 

[DVS]

Good behavior is supposed to be the norm, not a surprise. News organizations exist to tell the world about those events that are surprising and unusual. Nothing is keeping you or anyone else from starting a good news newspaper - except the fact that nobody gives a shit about stuff that's supposed to happen. Because why should I invest time from my day to learn that things that were supposed to happen, in fact, did happen?

If the news organizations did post the good things that happen, there would be a lot more than there are bad things. The trouble is, there are some people who only see the dark said of life and so they assume the whole world is like that. I don't see it that way. I feel sorry for those of you who see the world as such a dark existence.

 

[midwestyankee]

Yes, good behavior is suppose to be the norm. And I do care about things that are suppose to happen. I'd think you would, too. When good happens, we all benefit. But, you twisted my post around. I didn't say news organizations will report about the good things that cops do. But, they should. If they did, many people would understand that the news we do see isn't what always happens.

But, just posting examples of bad news isn't going to tell me all news is bad. It's easy to find stories about bad news, and you verify that yourself by saying news organizations exist to tell the world about those events that are surprising and unusual. That's why I say all of those posts about bad cops are lost on me. I'm sure there are many more stories where cops do good things, if the news would report about them.

Those links try to paint a picture that all cops are racist, all cops are bad and all cops are corrupt. The world isn't as dark as all that, but I'll never get you to see it. I've never had an issue with police and I doubt I ever will. I have no friends who have had such issues, either. We all have choices in life. If people live an honest life they're much less likely to be on the wrong side of the police. News organizations are fueling the fire. Maybe they should report on the good side of things. I guess you wouldn't care about that, but I would.

You are not, based on reading your posts over a long stretch of time, a particularly wealthy fellow nor do I get the sense that you are an influential person. Yet you have no idea how much more privileged you are than most black and brown people today. The fact that you have never had any problems with the police has nothing to do with living a perfect life. I know from earlier posts that you've had your wilder side at times. That your friends have had similar experiences says only that they, too, are mostly white like you. Unless you are black or brown living under the rule of heavy-handed and possibly racist cops, you can not understand their lives. To blame them for the frequency with which police murder unarmed black and brown people is like blaming women for being raped because they were pretty or wore an attractive skirt.

The man who was shot while running away from a policeman in South Carolina a few weeks ago? He wasn't doing anything wrong. He was stopped, according to the police dash cam, because he had a broken tail light, yet he had the required number of working tail lights according to state law. Let me repeat: he had done nothing wrong. He was, in your words, living an honest life. How do you explain his death to his family based on your own words and logic?

 

[DVS]

You are not, based on reading your posts over a long stretch of time, a particularly wealthy fellow nor do I get the sense that you are an influential person. Yet you have no idea how much more privileged you are than most black and brown people today. The fact that you have never had any problems with the police has nothing to do with living a perfect life. I know from earlier posts that you've had your wilder side at times. That your friends have had similar experiences says only that they, too, are mostly white like you. Unless you are black or brown living under the rule of heavy-handed and possibly racist cops, you can not understand their lives. To blame them for the frequency with which police murder unarmed black and brown people is like blaming women for being raped because they were pretty or wore an attractive skirt.

The man who was shot while running away from a policeman in South Carolina a few weeks ago? He wasn't doing anything wrong. He was stopped, according to the police dash cam, because he had a broken tail light, yet he had the required number of working tail lights according to state law. Let me repeat: he had done nothing wrong. He was, in your words, living an honest life. How do you explain his death to his family based on your own words and logic?

I'm sorry, but you don't know how many friends of color I have. True, most of my friends are white, but not all of them. I have brown and black friends. We all talk about the racist issues of the day, trying to make sense of it all. Unless they are just lying to me, all of my friends feel the same as I do. They have families but live a less than middle class life.

And that guy in South Carolina? Why did he run, if he hadn't done anything wrong? The guy in the car with him didn't run. And his brother said he probably ran because he had outstanding child support payments. Is that worth running from the law? Even if you get away, they know who you are. you left your car.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm sorry, but you don't know how many friends of color I have. True, most of my friends are white, but not all of them. I have brown and black friends. We all talk about the racist issues of the day, trying to make sense of it all. Unless they are just lying to me, all of my friends feel the same as I do. They have families but live a less than middle class life.

And that guy in South Carolina? Why did he run, if he hadn't done anything wrong? The guy in the car with him didn't run. And his brother said he probably ran because he had outstanding child support payments. Is that worth running from the law? Even if you get away, they know who you are. you left your car.

The fact that the man ran does not excuse the police officer from murdering him. End. Of. Story. If the police can't figure out how to do their jobs without murder, then we really do have a serious problem in this country and it wasn't created by brown people.

 

[DVS]

The fact that the man ran does not excuse the police officer from murdering him. End. Of. Story. If the police can't figure out how to do their jobs without murder, then we really do have a serious problem in this country and it wasn't created by brown people.

Again, you twist it around. I agree with you that the cop was wrong. He's in jail now, charged with murder. But, you said the guy hadn't done anything wrong. He just had a broken tail light. So, if he had done nothing wrong, why did he run?

Like I said in my last post, his friend didn't run...and he's still alive. No, the fact that he ran shouldn't have gotten him killed, but you said he had done nothing wrong. If he had done nothing wrong, why did he run?

And don't say it doesn't matter that he ran. It does matter, if he was shot because he ran. We don't know what would have happened, if he hadn't run. We only know what happened because he did run. Maybe he'd still be alive, like his friend is. But, he ran. That doesn't sound to me like he didn't do anything wrong.

He shouldn't have been shot and the cop will pay for that. But you don't run, if you have nothing to hide. End. Of. Story.

 

[subwannabe]

I'm really impressed with the doggedness with which you continue to hang onto the bone of blaming the victims here. It really is impressive. Dogmatic and horribly misinformed, but impressive in its tenacity nonetheless.

I don't approve of excessive use of force in any way shape or form but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that every single one of these poor victims victimized people themselves and most of them were resisting arrest. Michael Brown was a big thug who robbed stores during the daylight, just taking what he wanted in plain sight and pushing clerks out of the way. No one seems to dispute that Michael Brown tried to wrestle the officer's gun away from him. What was Michael Brown going to do with the gun if he had been successful? Nobody ever talks about all the innocent people victimized by these criminals. I agree that that doesn't give the police the right to kill them but I get sick and tired of these "victims" being treated as saints when they were far from it.

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't approve of excessive use of force in any way shape or form but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that every single one of these poor victims victimized people themselves and most of them were resisting arrest. Michael Brown was a big thug who robbed stores during the daylight, just taking what he wanted in plain sight and pushing clerks out of the way. No one seems to dispute that Michael Brown tried to wrestle the officer's gun away from him. What was Michael Brown going to do with the gun if he had been successful? Nobody ever talks about all the innocent people victimized by these criminals. I agree that that doesn't give the police the right to kill them but I get sick and tired of these "victims" being treated as saints when they were far from it.

The bolded part is what matters. Police officers do not have the right to murder people. If it were just a case of roughing up some folks in the course of arresting them, that would be entirely different and might even be excusable in some cases. But in no case is murder acceptable.

Despite the fact that you keep insisting you think it's wrong for the police to use excessive force, you always conclude by saying that the people they murdered were somehow complicit in the murder. If they did bad things they should expect to be arrested. But that's all. Until you admit that the police do not have the right to murder people without any but clauses in which you also blame the victims, I will continue to believe that you don't really believe there's anything wrong with the excessive force in these cases.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

 

[midwestyankee]

Again, you twist it around. I agree with you that the cop was wrong. He's in jail now, charged with murder. But, you said the guy hadn't done anything wrong. He just had a broken tail light. So, if he had done nothing wrong, why did he run?

Like I said in my last post, his friend didn't run...and he's still alive. No, the fact that he ran shouldn't have gotten him killed, but you said he had done nothing wrong. If he had done nothing wrong, why did he run?

And don't say it doesn't matter that he ran. It does matter, if he was shot because he ran. We don't know what would have happened, if he hadn't run. We only know what happened because he did run. Maybe he'd still be alive, like his friend is. But, he ran. That doesn't sound to me like he didn't do anything wrong.

He shouldn't have been shot and the cop will pay for that. But you don't run, if you have nothing to hide. End. Of. Story.

Let's talk about the bolded part by answering these two questions:

1. Do you consider it murder when a policeman shoots and kills a civilian?

2. Are there any circumstances in which you think society should excuse a police officer who kills a civilian? What are these circumstances?

 

[KoPilot]

Missouri police officers resign after black female mayor is elected

 

[subwannabe]

Anytime criminals are taken off the streets so they can't victimize more innocent people instead of constantly being let out again and again and again to commit yet even more crimes, I'm happy. If this also includes a few police officers (who broke the law) that's perfectly fine with me. Let's take them all out of the picture, one way or another. I'm sick of hearing about really innocent people who have been victimized and then it is discovered that the suspect has been arrested 20 times in the last couple of years. Bullshit on that. I want to hear the die hard liberals at least admit that these people were criminals and not people to be looked up to and idolized but the liberals refuse to do that. All they want to talk about is those poor victims of the police and not even mention all of the many victims who were victimized by these people. They are not to be looked up to nor are the police who go overboard.