Police are people, too

[midwestyankee]

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) then 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 some innocent person who has been victimized and then it is discovered that the person 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.

Do criminals have the right to a fair trial for their crimes?

 

[subwannabe]

Do the police have the right to a fair trial? Darren Wilson was exonerated by both his area and at the national level with Obama and Holder trying their best to find him guilty of something. And yet many still want his head, even after being cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[midwestyankee]

Do the police have the right to a fair trial? Darren Wilson was exonerated by both his area and at the national level with Obama and Holder trying their best to find him guilty of something. And yet many still want his head, even after being cleared of any wrongdoing.

I'll repeat: do you believe that criminals have the right to a fair trial for their crimes? It's a simple yes-or-no question and I'm willing to bet you have an answer. Let's share it and turn this into the discussion you claim to want.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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.

Have you asked them specifically about this issue - whether they feel that there's institutionalised racism in police forces? I agree your friends probably aren't lying to you, but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if they don't raise the issue with you, they don't have strong feelings about it.

And that guy in South Carolina? Why did he run, if he hadn't done anything wrong?

Possibly because he realised he was in the presence of a homicidal criminal? If I was in that situation, I'd consider running; both options are dangerous.

But that's just speculation. He may have had sound reasons for running, it may have been a bad decision made on the spur of the moment. We'll never know for sure, because a cop shot him and then a bunch of other cops failed to render medical assistance (and lied about it) so he's not here to tell us why he did that.

Rewarding the cops for silencing a witness, by taking the most favourable-to-them interpretation of the bits where Walter Scott is no longer able to give his side of things... that seems like a bad idea to me.

The guy in the car with him didn't run.

Neither did Rekia Boyd. She got shot in the head for it. Bang, dead at 22 for standing next to a black dude with a cell phone.

I repeat: when you are in the presence of a murderous criminal with a gun there is NO safe option.

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.

Quite possibly it was a bad decision. But have you considered that many people - probably most of us here - would find it difficult to make rational, sensible decisions when confronted by a violent criminal with a gun?

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?

I dunno. Let's ask him - whoops!

But maybe think about whether you could imagine a situation where you'd choose to run from a violent man with a gun, even if he'd told you not to.

Like I said in my last post, his friend didn't run...and he's still alive.

Yep. Sometimes you toss the coin and it comes up heads. Doesn't mean it's always going to come up that way, just that this one time it came up heads. And nobody knows in advance how that's going to turn out.

Well, except for the guy with the gun.

And don't say it doesn't matter that he ran. It does matter, if he was shot because he ran.

There's this thing that a lot of abusers do, where they frame their actions as conditional on other people's choices. Not "I'm an arsehole who likes punching women," but "you made me angry by not having dinner ready". Not "I'm the sort of guy who murders children" but "if you leave me I'll kill your children". The object is to make the victim seem responsible for something that's actually a choice by the abuser.

So let's be clear about this: Scott was not "shot because he ran". There was no tripwire connecting his feet to the trigger. Michael Slager chose to shoot him, and nobody forced Slager to do that.

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.

People run for all sorts of reasons. Yes, sometimes they run because they've got something to hide. Sometimes they run because they're panicked. And sometimes they run because they're in the presence of a violent man with a gun and they don't know whether staying might be dangerous too.

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.

Really? Perhaps you could tell me who it was that Rekia Boyd victimised before she got shot in the head?

 

[KoPilot]

Here's a question for everyone: define "criminal".

 

[IrisAlthea]

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



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?

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.

One more attempt in this circular argument that keeps repeating itself.
People who are not criminals, are being shot too, like in the quote in Bramblethornes post.
This is about paople being shot because they are in the wrong place, at the wrong time and looking the wrong way or perhaps behaving the wrong way.

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.

Yes, people react in the strangest way sometimes.
You don't have to have been around the block many times to know that some people are drunk, others are nervous wrecks for some reason, others have autistic tendencies or a severe case of ADHD or even just bad experiences before. Some people are just stupid, but not even for that, you get the death penalty.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[IrisAlthea]

Or just they are stupid or make a stupid choice. This is not a crime. Crimes might be a possibility, but not an inevitability.

Yes, that's what I meant.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[IrisAlthea]

I knew, just that I felt on this thread deserves congregation and celebration I think at least three of us say the same on this matter. That it is a ' not possible draw conclusion' and that to do so is a misguided matter.

I thought you meant it like that but wan't sure.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[subwannabe]

I'll repeat: do you believe that criminals have the right to a fair trial for their crimes? It's a simple yes-or-no question and I'm willing to bet you have an answer. Let's share it and turn this into the discussion you claim to want.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Do the police deserve a fair trial? Are they innocent until proven guilty? Are you willing to admit that Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong because not only did the Ferguson grand jury fail to charge him with any wrongdoing but neither did Obama's and Holder's henchmen? Or, is he still guilty, let free by a fucked up and prejudiced justice system?

The fact is I do believe in a fair trial and that people are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not convinced that you do. I guess I did answer your question after all but I'm betting that you won't answer mine with the same simple yes or no answers that you demanded from me. You will twist and contort your answers to suit your viewpoint without really answering my questions because that is what liberals do.

Then again, you might just surprise me and admit that you don't believe in fair trials for the police, that they aren't innocent until proven guilty, and won't admit that Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong - even after being cleared by not only a grand jury but by those in the administration who were so desperately wanting to charge him with something.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Do the police deserve a fair trial? Are they innocent until proven guilty? Are you willing to admit that Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong because not only did the Ferguson grand jury fail to charge him with any wrongdoing but so did Obama's and Holder's henchmen? Or, is he still guilty, let free by a fucked up and prejudiced justice system?

The fact is I do believe in a fair trial and that people are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not convinced that you do. I guess I did answer your question after all but I'm betting that you won't answer mine with the same simple yes or no questions that you demanded from me. You will twist and contort your answers to suit your viewpoint without really answering my questions because that is what liberals do.

Then again, you might just surprise me and admit that you don't believe in fair trials for the police, that they aren't innocent until proven guilty, and won't admit that Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong - even after being cleared by not only a grand jury but by those in the administration who were so desperately wanting to charge him with something.

Everyone in the United States has the right to a fair trial and I think that is one of our most precious constitutional rights. Of course I believe that police officers deserve a fair trial. For the record, Darren Wilson never went to trial so his case is mostly irrelevant to the question.

So, now that we both agree that all deserve a fair trial, I'll take the next step. Do you believe that a police officer acting alone in the field provides a fair trial in the same sense as is guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

[KoPilot]

Sometimes I wonder if most people even know what a grand jury is.

 

[BiBunny]

Regardless of who's a "criminal" and who's not, shooting someone should be the very last option, not the first one. And IF it ever comes down to having to shoot someone, as soon as the person's down, an ambulance should be called (and first aid administered until said ambulance arrives). Standing around and letting someone you've shot bleed out is not self-defense or an unfortunate side effect of upholding the law or whatever other bullshit that is often used to justify these things. It's summary execution.

The police are (supposedly) professionals who've been trained to deal with these kinds of situations, and yet they go for their guns right off the bat, like some terrified kid who either doesn't know or doesn't care about the consequences.

 

[midwestyankee]

Regardless of who's a "criminal" and who's not, shooting someone should be the very last option, not the first one. And IF it ever comes down to having to shoot someone, as soon as the person's down, an ambulance should be called (and first aid administered until said ambulance arrives). Standing around and letting someone you've shot bleed out is not self-defense or an unfortunate side effect of upholding the law or whatever other bullshit that is often used to justify these things. It's summary execution.

The police are (supposedly) professionals who've been trained to deal with these kinds of situations, and yet they go for their guns right off the bat, like some terrified kid who either doesn't know or doesn't care about the consequences.

In many of the recent cases that have been publicized, there is a sense that the police officers felt no fear of any consequences for their actions beyond having to complete some perfunctory paperwork. Consequences matter and when there are none, bad behavior is a likely outcome.

 

[BiBunny]

In many of the recent cases that have been publicized, there is a sense that the police officers felt no fear of any consequences for their actions beyond having to complete some perfunctory paperwork. Consequences matter and when there are none, bad behavior is a likely outcome.

Agreed, 100%.

 

[DVS]

Have you asked them specifically about this issue - whether they feel that there's institutionalised racism in police forces? I agree your friends probably aren't lying to you, but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if they don't raise the issue with you, they don't have strong feelings about it.



Possibly because he realised he was in the presence of a homicidal criminal? If I was in that situation, I'd consider running; both options are dangerous.

But that's just speculation. He may have had sound reasons for running, it may have been a bad decision made on the spur of the moment. We'll never know for sure, because a cop shot him and then a bunch of other cops failed to render medical assistance (and lied about it) so he's not here to tell us why he did that.

Rewarding the cops for silencing a witness, by taking the most favourable-to-them interpretation of the bits where Walter Scott is no longer able to give his side of things... that seems like a bad idea to me.



Neither did Rekia Boyd. She got shot in the head for it. Bang, dead at 22 for standing next to a black dude with a cell phone.

I repeat: when you are in the presence of a murderous criminal with a gun there is NO safe option.



Quite possibly it was a bad decision. But have you considered that many people - probably most of us here - would find it difficult to make rational, sensible decisions when confronted by a violent criminal with a gun?



I dunno. Let's ask him - whoops!

But maybe think about whether you could imagine a situation where you'd choose to run from a violent man with a gun, even if he'd told you not to.



Yep. Sometimes you toss the coin and it comes up heads. Doesn't mean it's always going to come up that way, just that this one time it came up heads. And nobody knows in advance how that's going to turn out.

Well, except for the guy with the gun.



There's this thing that a lot of abusers do, where they frame their actions as conditional on other people's choices. Not "I'm an arsehole who likes punching women," but "you made me angry by not having dinner ready". Not "I'm the sort of guy who murders children" but "if you leave me I'll kill your children". The object is to make the victim seem responsible for something that's actually a choice by the abuser.

So let's be clear about this: Scott was not "shot because he ran". There was no tripwire connecting his feet to the trigger. Michael Slager chose to shoot him, and nobody forced Slager to do that.



People run for all sorts of reasons. Yes, sometimes they run because they've got something to hide. Sometimes they run because they're panicked. And sometimes they run because they're in the presence of a violent man with a gun and they don't know whether staying might be dangerous too.



Really? Perhaps you could tell me who it was that Rekia Boyd victimised before she got shot in the head?

There are a lot of stupid questions in this post that I won't even try to answer, because they were twisted around from statements I made in previous posts.

But, I'll ask you one very straight question about the South Carolina situation. The car was stopped because of a broken tail light. The cop went up to the car and talked to the two males in the car, then walked back to his car, probably with the driver's license and other information, just like a normal traffic stop.

In the time period while the cop was back in his car, checking the identity of the driver decided to run. At the time he decided to run, he was still in his car, and the cop was in his own car, checking information. If the driver felt he was in danger, why didn't he drive his own car to the nearest police station or some other place where it wasn't just him against the cop? If the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you have called him, why did he get out of the car and run, instead?

If he had done nothing wrong and the cop wasn't going to find out anything by checking his information, he could have driven his car to some populated place, where there would be many, many witnesses and the cop wouldn't be able to cover up any criminal action he might have planned. The more eyes that see an illegal act, the less likely it's going to be possible to cover it up.

Instead of staying in the car and driving to a police station or other place like that, he chose to open the door and run on foot, making himself a very open target for the cop, if the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you say he was.

And if the cop was a homicidal criminal, why wasn't the rider of the car worried about getting shot, too? Weren't both occupants of the car black? So now, you're going to tell me that the cop was a homicidal criminal looking to shoot down innocent blacks, but he was satisfied with killing only one. If he was going to satisfy his killing urges, he could have killed them both, while they sat in the car, plant a gun and be done with the whole thing.

The fact that the driver got out of his car and ran while his friend didn't overpowers your statement that the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could. The driver ran and the rider didn't. That driver had a choice to drive to a different location, so there would be witnesses to what was going on. He didn't. Instead, he chose to run...the rider didn't.

There must have been a reason why the driver chose to run, and I don't think it was because the cop was a homicidal criminal. He had something to hide. His brother said it might have been because he had outstanding child support payments. I don't know if that is the reason he ran, but the fact is, he ran. If he had nothing to hide, why did he run? If that cop wasn't going to find out anything by checking his driver's license, why did he run?

Again, the rider didn't run and he's still alive. Just let that sink in a minute. He didn't run, and he's still alive. That doesn't justify the driver getting shot by the cop, because the cop was totally wrong for shooting the driver, but maybe he would still be alive, if he hadn't run. Oh, he'd have a court date to appear before a judge about why he wasn't paying his child support, but he'd probably still be alive.

So, the driver did escalate the situation by running. Was he guilty of something where he should have been shot? No. But running from the police is never a good thing to do. NEVER! They automatically assume you have something to hide. They are going to chase you and do their best to catch you, because you ran from the law.

We don't know what went on between the cop and the driver after the scuffled out in the open. But, again, the driver ran, instead of doing the smart thing and allowing the cop to arrest him. Again, that is no reason to be shot and killed, but it did escalate the situation even further.

We may never know what went on between them in the scuffle. Maybe it will come out in the cop's murder trial. But for some reason, the cop felt he should shoot that driver, even though he had his back to him and was no further threat. We don't know why he shot him, but hopefully that will also come out in the trial. I don't think he will be able to justify shooting him, but all of that will be in the trial.

Back to the rider. If the cop was a homicidal criminal and intended to kill the driver all along, why would he leave the rider as a witness? Like I said, he had them both in the car. Shoot them both, then. But he leaves them sitting in the car, turns his back and walks back to his own car. At that point the driver decided to run, but the rider didn't. The rider didn't escalate the situation, so the cop didn't have a reason to assume he'd done anything. He went after the driver.

There are many situations where there are two suspects in a car, and only one cop. Both people will choose to run and they will go in different directions, making the cop choose who he's going to chase after. This didn't happen here. The driver chose to run and he's dead. The rider chose not to run and he's still alive.

The driver shouldn't have been killed, we all agree on that, but he did escalate the situation by running. He very well may still be alive today, if he'd just done what the rider did and stay in the car.

Don't try to bring up any other case to twist an opinion around to mean something else. we are just talking about the South Carolina situation, right now. The driver ran and he's dead. The rider didn't run and he's alive. The cop was wrong for shooting the driver, but to me it seems like he might still be alive, if he'd just stayed in the car with the rider. His running doesn't justify being killed, but it added some weight to the situation.

The rider didn't seem threatened by the cop or maybe he would have run, too. And the driver didn't run just once, but twice. He first ran from the car, when the cop turned his back and walked back to his own car. Then, he ran again, after they scuffled.

If he had been the only occupant of the car and decided to run, my scenario wouldn't work. The cop could have said something to him that made him feel afraid for his life. But, with the addition of the rider being in the car, that changes the scenario. That means there had to be something only the driver knew about that made him decide to run.

It seems obvious that the rider didn't feel threatened by the cop. He didn't run. He didn't escalate the situation and he's still alive. If the rider didn't feel threatened by the cop, why would just the driver feel threatened? The driver had the choice to drive away from the scene, as I stated before. Maybe they talked that over and the rider didn't want to do that, because he had nothing to hide. So, maybe the driver decided to run on his own. But again, the question is why did he run? You don't run from police. They automatically will assume you have something to hide.

It's a simple question. If someone has nothing to hide, why run? That's never a good thing to do. Yes, he's dead now, so we can't ask him. He was murdered by the cop. But maybe, just maybe he would still be alive today, if he hadn't run.

 

[DVS]

Yes, people react in the strangest way sometimes.
You don't have to have been around the block many times to know that some people are drunk, others are nervous wrecks for some reason, others have autistic tendencies or a severe case of ADHD or even just bad experiences before. Some people are just stupid, but not even for that, you get the death penalty.

You also run because you are a criminal and don't want to be caught. No, he shouldn't have been killed for running, but the fact remains that he did run. Running is NEVER a good thing to do. You escalate the situation. It as a simple traffic stop for a broken tail light, until the driver decided to run.

We all agree that the cop was wrong for shooting and killing him. We don't need to keep discussing that as a bad thing that shouldn't have happened. We all know it shouldn't have happened. The cop was wrong and he's been arrested for murder. But, this is just a single case. You can't judge all police by this one cop going too far.

I know, you'll have other cases to bring up, and I understand that. But I've said before, the times when cops do good things, help victims when they have been mugged, help victims when they have been robbed or find murderers with investigations, those are never publicized. They aren't news worthy, so we don't hear about those.

So, because we only hear about the bad times, people assume there aren't any good times. We hear about these bad things that have gone wrong and that makes it seem like all cops are bad, all cops are murderers, all cops are corrupted and there just aren't any good ones out there. They are all sociopaths looking for another unarmed black man to kill, another notch on their gun, another story to tell while sitting in a bar with his fellow cops.

This was a bad thing to happen. And it's very sad that the guy is dead. Every situation like that is bad when someone is killed, for no reason at all. But this isn't the way all cops are. If you feel like it is, I'm sorry for you, because you look at life from a very dark place.

 

[DVS]

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?

1. Describe the color red to someone who has never seen it before.

That's impossible, just like your questions are impossible to answer by the way you stated them. I should respond by asking you how you define a civilian. We could go at each other like this for a very long time. You and I both agree that to kill an innocent person is wrong. There are going to be situations where an innocent person will be thought to be armed with a gun and killed. That is a sad reality we have to live with.

If you can fix it so that never happens, I'm with you, but we need police to do a job. They carry a lethal weapon with them while doing that job. Sometimes there will be judgement mistakes made. Sometimes there are just bad cops. But the bulk of them are good people trying to do a very difficult job. If we say they are all corrupt killers looking for their next black man to kill, that only makes the job more difficult for the good cops who are just trying to enforce the law.

 

[KoPilot]

I know, you'll have other cases to bring up, and I understand that. But I've said before, the times when cops do good things, help victims when they have been mugged, help victims when they have been robbed or find murderers with investigations, those are never publicized. They aren't news worthy, so we don't hear about those.

Lol um... there are not one, but TWO cable TV channels that literally show nothing but cops being the good guys. And let's not forget that this VERY NEW trend in mainstream media reporting when a cop has done something heinously wrong wouldn't have even started happening without the Ferguson riots. And even then, the news always still manages to villanize the victim. So don't even go there with that pity party shit.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KoPilot]

If we say they are all corrupt killers looking for their next black man to kill, that only makes the job more difficult for the good cops who are just trying to enforce the law.

Also: how, exactly, does saying "cops are all corrupt killers looking for their next black man to kill" make things harder for the "good" cops? I don't want you to wax poetic, I want real, concrete examples of how talk makes "the job" "more difficult". What job? (Cops do lots of jobs; in a link I posted upthread, it's explained that 90% of a police officer's job is paperwork.) What kind of difficult? (Are they just getting butthurt? Are more police getting killed at the hands of "criminals" than ever before? (I've yet to get a definition of criminal from anyone here, btw) Are they all dyslexic now so doing that paperwork has suddenly become a herculean task now that a few more people don't like them?) Define "enforce the law".

I keep asking for definitions from people in this thread because if we keep taking these words and concepts for granted to mean wishy-washy abstract shit that can't really pinned down, then we are letting them define these things for us. And doing so hands over the reigns.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]