Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

Just for the record, if someone says "I am going to shoot you" and starts to pull out a gun, how many people here would try to grab the gun? How many would stand there and watch the guy pull it out and shoot you?

I would grab the gun.

 

[JohnRM]

I forget where it was, but there was a recent twitter feed from actual soldiers who talked about the pictures of the police using military equipment. It was pretty clear from them that the police had no training whatsoever in riot control; having your gun raised will actually cause aggression with the rioters, as such raising your gun should be the absolute last resort, yet the militarized police ran around in the streets like Counter Strike models with their shiny military assault rifles. This is something the actual soldiers are trained in very very early, as they need to learn to riot control. Apparently the police has had no such training.

Know that I have no opinion about this actual Brown incident. I'm concerned with the overall American police culture, which I'm additionally told by insiders' articles to have crime movie hero complexes. Are police taught to keep their weapons down until actually attacked or threatened with weapons? Or do they draw their weapons first? I'm unaware really, but the sources I'm presented notes that their idea of aggression control is pretty much about "I'm here now, I'm holding a gun towards you, so you should rationally keep still and passive now." - the problem is that humans being threatened at their lives do not behave rationally, and a gun is life-threatening.

Know that many of the articles I've read are anecdotical and I haven't been presented with an actual description of police education. That's kinda what I'm asking for. Are American police properly trained how to control and prevent aggression, or are they taught how to shoot to defend themselves? Which is prioritized? Because the point of a police isn't to provide additional self defense rights to a state organization, it is to diminish criminal behavior and control aggression.

This incident, I don't know man, isolated Brown could be the aggressor. I don't care that much. The Ferguson demonstrations however (not the looters) have a point though as to what I'm told so far; American police seemingly has severe problems with how to deal with crime properly on the street.

I am not familiar with the training regimen of the various law enforcement agencies in the United States.

What I can say is that there are a limited number of "non-lethal" tools provided to law enforcement due almost solely to the fact the "non-lethal" tools often do not work as intended. They often cause permanent harm and even lead to death. On the other hand, they also often fail to disable a threat. To top it off, the use of "non-lethal" tools also leads to a disproportionate number of lawsuits, many of which have to be settled out of court, simply because its cheaper to do so. The "non-lethal" air of these tools also makes officers less reluctant to use them. Overall, they do not achieve the desired result.

With regard to training, though I am not well-versed in the various programs offered, I am well aware that the United States has a large population and a massive area to patrol. There is only so much training that local departments, especially in rural and suburban areas can afford.

Speaking to my own opinion on the matter, I do not have a problem with law enforcement agents stomping people's guts out if they resist arrest or using deadly force if they assault an officer. Disorder should not be tolerated. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, pursue the matter through the proper channels. There are plenty of bleeding hearts willing to support your cause, no matter the credibility of it.

 

[Berzerker]

I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty, but they are a minute fraction of the lot. Furthermore, even in those cases, it typically does not end in death or dismemberment, because most people are smart enough not to resist. For those that do, I have no sympathy and zero tolerance. May death come swiftly.

so if the criminal is wearing a badge you want a quick death for their victim if they resist the criminal?

 

[JohnRM]

No, I don't think we do. Or at least I don't. Seriously, criminals are not like orcs from Mordor or something. Theres a huge difference between shoplifting and serious violent crime. Did he suddenly snap and go for the kill because he was at three strikes and staring down some serious hard weeks at youth county? I'm staggered someone like that could have just completed high school. Perhaps all the stolen nicotine in his system affected his judgement?

No, of course not. The cop made a conscious decision to shoot a black man, in the middle of the street, in front of more than a dozen witnesses, in broad daylight.

so if the criminal is wearing a badge you want a quick death for their victim if they resist the criminal?

Are we talking about a criminal who is impersonating an officer? I need more information.

 

[Senethro]

I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty, but they are a minute fraction of the lot. Furthermore, even in those cases, it typically does not end in death or dismemberment, because most people are smart enough not to resist. For those that do, I have no sympathy and zero tolerance. May death come swiftly.

This seems an entirely reasonable position to take. Do you think it would help if police had dashcams/helmet cams issued as standard equipment so they could record incidents of resisting arrest, expediting investigation after the event, thus ensuring officers get back on the beat to ensure death is delivered even more swiftly!

 

[JohnRM]

This seems an entirely reasonable position to take. Do you think it would help if police had dashcams/helmet cams issued as standard equipment so they could record incidents of resisting arrest, expediting investigation after the event, thus ensuring officers get back on the beat to ensure death is delivered even more swiftly!

I favor placing cameras on the dashboard of the police cruiser and on the person of the officer as standard equipment. I also support the right of citizens to film encounters with law enforcement provided that they are NOT the subject of the encounter and remain a reasonable distance away from the scene.

 

[Senethro]

No, of course not. The cop make a conscious decision to shoot a black man, in the middle of the street, in front of more than a dozen witnesses, in broad daylight.

Yes. He did. You are describing a thing that happened. I'm under the impression that everyone agrees Wilson pulled the trigger, noone else, and that the gun itself has declined to offer its opinion on the proceedings.

 

[Senethro]

I favor placing cameras on the dashboard of the police cruiser and on the person of the officer as standard equipment. I also support the right of citizens to film encounters with law enforcement provided that they are NOT the subject of the encounter and remain a reasonable distance away from the scene.

An interesting distinction to make!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I also support the right of citizens to film encounters with law enforcement provided that they are NOT the subject of the encounter and remain a reasonable distance away from the scene.

From experience, this is a very quick and easy way to become the subject of the encounter, at which point staying a reasonable distance away becomes extremely problematic.

 

[JohnRM]

From experience, this is a very quick and easy way to become the subject of the encounter, at which point staying a reasonable distance away becomes extremely problematic.

Indeed. However, in most cases, the problem is what the laws that are on the books rather then law enforcement. If there is an ordinance or law that prohibits the filming of law enforcement encounters with persons in the streets, then you must obey the law. Work to change it if you do not like it. If you insist, expect to arrested.

There have also been cases where cops have unlawfully arrested individuals for filming when they have had the right. These cases are the extreme minority. Most cops permit filming without incident, especially in the era of camera-equipped cellular phones.

 

[Angst]

I am not familiar with the training regimen of the various law enforcement agencies in the United States.

What I can say is that there are a limited number of "non-lethal" tools provided to law enforcement due almost solely to the fact the "non-lethal" tools often do not work as intended. They often cause permanent harm and even lead to death. On the other hand, they also often fail to disable a threat. To top it off, the use of "non-lethal" tools also leads to a disproportionate number of lawsuits, many of which have to be settled out of court, simply because its cheaper to do so. The "non-lethal" air of these tools also makes officers less reluctant to use them. Overall, they do not achieve the desired result.

With regard to training, though I am not well-versed in the various programs offered, I am well aware that the United States has a large population and a massive area to patrol. There is only so much training that local departments, especially in rural and suburban areas can afford.

Speaking to my own opinion on the matter, I do not have a problem with law enforcement agents stomping people's guts out if they resist arrest or using deadly force if they assault an officer. Disorder should not be tolerated. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, pursue the matter through the proper channels. There are plenty of bleeding hearts willing to support your cause, no matter the credibility of it.

Uh. Well. Two things. a) Of course the police should defend itself when assaulted, I agree with you on that; but it is often in the privilegued position of power, and the police should take that into consideration, and I'm not sure how much they do. And b) aggression control does not only translate into the actual weapon used. It's actually quite irrelevant. Any kind of threat with a weapon may cause aggression in the threatened. Therefore it might be beneficial simply to delay the use of firearms longer than these police do; all scandals are seemingly because the police is way too trigger happy. It also translates into a particular attitude when talking to a suspect.

I have been stopped by police twice in my life; first they thought I had been robbing some house or was carrying something illegal (I was walking with a huge cardboard crate at 3 am, long story: it was M:tG cards) and second I trespassed into a park where I was not allowed to be at that hour, I crossed a fence. None of those events are particularly aggressive, but I can easily imagine the first instance having gone differently if I wasn't a white Dane. The police in my situation simply asked what I had in my crate, and I told them and showed them outright.

If I was a black American, with knowledge of how often blacks are shot by police, I have no idea how I would have acted. First, their interrogation could be wildly different. They could have held me down outright or keep me at gunpoint in order to investigate the crate for themselves. If so, I would need to look as unthreatening as possible, and I have no idea how to do that. If the crate contained delicates, I would need to put it down gently, and telling them back that I had to be slow could seem suspicious or provoke aggression. Or, well, they could have simply asked like they did in my position; yet I wouldn't know whether to walk up to them in order to show my crate; this can easily be interpreted as aggressive behavior, provoking them to "control" my behavior. Now, I may just be paranoid but the point is that there are plenty of steps I, being inspected, could do something wrong when I know I'm actually looking aggressive/suspicious already because of my skin color. I might especially act aggressively if I feared they'd shoot me, as I wouldn't know how to behave in order to make them not do that.

It's up to the police to get the education necessary to control these tensions. There is no excuse for them to screw it up and be threatening on my life when interrogating.

But understand, I am not disagreeing with you that the police must defend itself when threatened by gunfire. But it's up to them to better interpret when to threaten with fire and when to actually open fire; none of these positions should be the default when controlling the behavior of a suspect.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed. However, in most cases, the problem is what the laws that are on the books rather then law enforcement. If there is an ordinance or law that prohibits the filming of law enforcement encounters with persons in the streets, then you must obey the law. Work to change it if you do not like it. If you insist, expect to arrested.

There have also been cases where cops have unlawfully arrested individuals for filming when they have had the right. These cases are the extreme minority. Most cops permit filming without incident, especially in the era of camera-equipped cellular phones.

Laws that prohibit filming of law enforcement encounters don't need to be changed...they should already have been thrown out as unconstitutional.

However, as you already said, you would not support the subject of the encounter doing the filming. So in effect if I am filming, and the officer 'decides to investigate my behavior' you are in favor of me being required to stop filming at that point. So if in the course of investigating my behavior he decides I attempted to assault him and beats me to death I will have found my undocumented but just reward, yes?

"Let's face it, the guy was out there filming me, so he was obviously some kind of cop hater. No surprise someone like that would blatantly assault an officer just trying to serve the community. I regret the loss of life that this criminal miscreant made necessary."

 

[JohnRM]

Yes. He did. You are describing a thing that happened. I'm under the impression that everyone agrees Wilson pulled the trigger, noone else, and that the gun itself has declined to offer its opinion on the proceedings.

The officer was not given a choice. His life was threatened. That was the decision of the Grand Jury and what the forensic evidence supports.

Uh. Well. Two things. a) Of course the police should defend itself when assaulted, I agree with you on that; but it is often in the privilegued position of power, and the police should take that into consideration, and I'm not sure how much they do. And b) aggression control does not only translate into the actual weapon used. It's actually quite irrelevant. Any kind of threat with a weapon may cause aggression in the threatened. Therefore it might be beneficial simply to delay the use of firearms longer than these police do; all scandals are seemingly because the police is way too trigger happy. It also translates into a particular attitude when talking to a suspect.

I have been stopped by police twice in my life; first they thought I had been robbing some house or was carrying something illegal (I was walking with a huge cardboard crate at 3 am, long story: it was M:tG cards) and second I trespassed into a park where I was not allowed to be at that hour, I crossed a fence. None of those events are particularly aggressive, but I can easily imagine the first instance having gone differently if I wasn't a white Dane. The police in my situation simply asked what I had in my crate, and I told them and showed them outright.

If I was a black American, with knowledge of how often blacks are shot by police, I have no idea how I would have acted. First, their interrogation could be wildly different. They could have held me down outright or keep me at gunpoint in order to investigate the crate for themselves. If so, I would need to look as unthreatening as possible, and I have no idea how to do that. If the crate contained delicates, I would need to put it down gently, and telling them back that I had to be slow could seem suspicious or provoke aggression. Or, well, they could have simply asked like they did in my position; yet I wouldn't know whether to walk up to them in order to show my crate; this can easily be interpreted as aggressive behavior, provoking them to "control" my behavior. Now, I may just be paranoid but the point is that there are plenty of steps I, being inspected, could do something wrong when I know I'm actually looking aggressive/suspicious already because of my skin color. I might especially act aggressively if I feared they'd shoot me, as I wouldn't know how to behave in order to make them not do that.

It's up to the police to get the education necessary to control these. There is no excuse for them to screw it up and be threatening on my life when interrogating.

But understand, I am not disagreeing with you that the police must defend itself when threatened by gunfire. But it's up to them to better interpret when to threaten with fire and when to actually open fire; none of these positions should be the default when controlling the behavior of a suspect.

Generally speaking, I cannot dispute any that.

 

[Angst]

Generally speaking, I cannot dispute any that.

Well high five then

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Uh. Well. Two things. a) Of course the police should defend itself when assaulted, I agree with you on that; but it is often in the privilegued position of power, and the police should take that into consideration, and I'm not sure how much they do. And b) aggression control does not only translate into the actual weapon used. It's actually quite irrelevant. Any kind of threat with a weapon may cause aggression in the threatened. Therefore it might be beneficial simply to delay the use of firearms longer than these police do; all scandals are seemingly because the police is way too trigger happy. It also translates into a particular attitude when talking to a suspect.

I have been stopped by police twice in my life; first they thought I had been robbing some house or was carrying something illegal (I was walking with a huge cardboard crate at 3 am, long story: it was M:tG cards) and second I trespassed into a park where I was not allowed to be at that hour, I crossed a fence. None of those events are particularly aggressive, but I can easily imagine the first instance having gone differently if I wasn't a white Dane. The police in my situation simply asked what I had in my crate, and I told them and showed them outright.

If I was a black American, with knowledge of how often blacks are shot by police, I have no idea how I would have acted. First, their interrogation could be wildly different. They could have held me down outright or keep me at gunpoint in order to investigate the crate for themselves. If so, I would need to look as unthreatening as possible, and I have no idea how to do that. If the crate contained delicates, I would need to put it down gently, and telling them back that I had to be slow could seem suspicious or provoke aggression. Or, well, they could have simply asked like they did in my position; yet I wouldn't know whether to walk up to them in order to show my crate; this can easily be interpreted as aggressive behavior, provoking them to "control" my behavior. Now, I may just be paranoid but the point is that there are plenty of steps I, being inspected, could do something wrong when I know I'm actually looking aggressive/suspicious already because of my skin color. I might especially act aggressively if I feared they'd shoot me, as I wouldn't know how to behave in order to make them not do that.

It's up to the police to get the education necessary to control these. There is no excuse for them to screw it up and be threatening on my life when interrogating.

But understand, I am not disagreeing with you that the police must defend itself when threatened by gunfire. But it's up to them to better interpret when to threaten with fire and when to actually open fire; none of these positions should be the default when controlling the behavior of a suspect.

Let's assume that a guy carrying a large crate of M:tG cards at three AM has put a good bit of effort into (legally) acquiring them. How would that person be expected to react to an order to "drop the box"? That is almost certainly the order that a black guy with a box at three am in my neighborhood is going to hear, and most likely a white guy since a white guy out at three am in my neighborhood 'must be some sort of criminal or he would be cowering indoors because of the image law enforcement has created that there is a killer on every corner'.

Bending over to set the box down is not complying.

Responding that the ground is wet and the contents of the box will be damaged would be refusing to comply.

Bending over and setting the box down could be interpreted as trying to retrieve a weapon from the box, so a shooting, should it occur, will be almost certainly ruled as justified and have no consequences for the officer involved.

That's my reality, but it isn't justice.

 

[Berzerker]

Are we talking about a criminal who is impersonating an officer? I need more information.

No, "I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty"

so you think that cop should kill their victim quickly if they resist the travesty

correct?

or did I misinterpret what you said?

 

[Bamspeedy]

If the majority of the police force is "white", and the majority of the population is "black", you don't think that's relevant?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson,_Missouri

That's an amazing shift in demographics in just twenty years, imo.

I do not. Perhaps, there are not enough blacks who want to be cops in Ferguson.

I think John is right here. We need to see how the demographics of the qualified applicants to determine if there was a preference for whites rather than blacks. Police departments don't just hire random people off the street. Isn't there at least a 2 year police science degree or something you need from at least a community college to qualify. I wouldn't be surprised if graduates apply to police departments all over the state and then move to wherever they get hired, since there may not be an opening in their hometown.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't be surprised if graduates apply to police departments all over the state and then move to wherever they get hired, since there may not be an opening in their hometown.

Or not. The majority of the FPD do not live in Ferguson. Another thing that makes one wonder exactly who they mean when they say they are protecting their community.

 

[tetley]

I just don't think it's self-defense when the cop is the instigator. In that case, I believe it is the citizen who has the right to defend themselves. Or even make a citizen's arrest, for any number of felonies the cop is committing. There is no way you can citizen's arrest an offending police officer without a show of lethal force.

 

[JohnRM]

No, "I will submit an acknowledgement that cases do occur wherein an officer exceeds his authority, abuses his power, and/or commits some other travesty"

so you think that cop should kill their victim quickly if they resist the travesty

correct?

or did I misinterpret what you said?

I was being facetious when I said, "May death come swiftly."

If you resist arrest, I do not have a problem with a cop beating you senseless, if that is what it takes to make the arrest. If you resist by assaulting an officer, I do not have a problem with the officer using deadly force, if he feels that it is the most appropriate action to take. I will not ask him to put himself at greater risk with alternatives to deadly force.