Ferguson

[Antilogic]

My son and I were in just woke up eyes not working entirely right sleepymode a morning not too long ago when I went into the kitchen to get him a drink and some cereal. I hear *crinkle crinkle* from the living room and realize that we left out jelly beans the previous night. I walk back to the living room where he's half-asleep stuffed a not insignificant amount of sugar into his mouth, he looks at me in a moment of 3 year old panic and blurts around the candy, "CanIhavesomejellybeansplease?"

I couldn't help but laugh. But it seemed like a good life lesson. It's still easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And certain careers reward it.

That dude is pretty clever. Watch out for him!

 

[Domen]

Please observe that another cop in my video is black. Who had naturally covered his white co worker. So much for racial solidarity.

Then maybe he is not "true black", but "white in disguise", or just "acting white"?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Please observe that another cop in my video is black. Who had naturally covered his white co worker. So much for racial solidarity.

I don't have a link handy, but I recently read about a study that measured reaction times of police officers firing on simulated people of different races on a shooting range. It measured how much time officers took making the decision to draw and fire. Across the group, the officers were faster to pull the trigger on targets that appeared to be Black than on targets that appeared to be White. This was true regardless of the ethnicity of the officer; as a group, the officers were quicker to shoot Black people, but White officers were no quicker to shoot than Black officers. I think the difference was very small, something like 1 second or less, but still, it was a consistent and noticeable difference (and who knows, maybe 1 extra second is what a police officer needs to distinguish a cellphone from a handgun?).

 

[Sommerswerd]

The conduct of the second officer underscores the point that this is not just a case of a few rogue bad apples. This issue is coast-to-coast... NYC to LA... Northern states, Southern ones, the Midwest, East coast, West coast, and everything in between. It's not "a few bad cops" that are spoling the reputations of the rest of the angelic pure-as-the-driven-snow cops. It's the other way around. They're mostly bad, and the "good" ones are the exception, rather than the rule.

I would like to see States choose (or the Fed govt force them to choose) one of the following, to substantially reduce these incidents:

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work. Either move to the precinct where you work, or if you dont want to move, then transfer to your home-precinct. Or quit and make room for locals to get the jobs. Many of these inner city neighborhoods could use the local high paying jobs for the economy. Plus cops will care much more about improving their own neighborhood. Also police will treat their neighbors much more considerately and carefully, and the neighbors will respond much better to cops that they know. As far as the effect on officer safety goes, I say public safety has to outweigh officer safety. Be a valuable, helpful member of your community, don't be a jerk and you won't have to worry about people knowing where you live.

2. No guns or tazers for regular officers. Nightstick, mace, radio, flashlight, maybe even dogs in the cruisers if they want (plenty of shelter dogs needing homes). If a situation calls for guns then you have to call for a Captain or a SWAT team who will have special training and authority to use firearms/tazers. That way everything is documented on video and the suspect will be more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming armed force. You also get rid of the "his word against mine." Less deaths all around.

3. No more "self defense" or "I was in fear" justification for deadly force by police. Police can use deadly force only to protect members of the public from imminent death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is never justified to protect only the officer and/or other officers. This way, if a guy is waving a gun around or shooting in public there will be plenty of witnesses, and we avoid these self-serving police reports where the only two witnesses are the shooting-officer and the dead guy. Again, public safety is more important than officer safety. If you want to keep your "right to self defense" then fine, get a new job. There are plenty of people that need a good government job.

Again, pick one. Any one of these will acheive the desired effect, and every state can pick the one that tailors best to their needs.

 

[Farm Boy]

They're mostly bad, and the "good" ones are the exception, rather than the rule.

No.

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work.

We do that.

That dude is pretty clever. Watch out for him!

His full time full day every day occupation is manipulating my wife and I. He knows the both of us better than we know ourselves or each other, I'd wager.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No.

I know we are probably going to disagree on this, but I would bet that the majority (as in over 50%) of police would cover for their fellow officers wrongdoing or questionable conduct. In that way, I think that the 2nd officer on the scene is a reflection of normal behavior for police.

We do that.

Who is we?

BTW, Here is an article I just found on the subject (I am reading it now).

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/08/should-cops-have-to-live-where-they-work/378858/

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, perhaps we're fossils out here in this corner of Illinois but my village and my county police forces have residency requirements.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, perhaps we're fossils out here in this corner of Illinois but my village and my county police forces have residency requirements.

Yeah, no, you guys are fossils ... Also, county residency requirements are very different from precinct/neighborhood requirements.

BTW when was the last shooting of an unarmed person by police in your town?

 

[EgonSpengler]

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work.

I agree that this a good idea. However, it's really easy to envision a scenario where it just isn't practical. For example, a poor town may not have the money to provide incentives, moving expenses, a higher salary, etc. I would worry that this requirement would mean that wealthy, safe towns and neighborhoods would just have more and better policing, which is probably already true. Maybe there could be some kind of Federal grants system, or something.

2. No guns or tazers for regular officers.

I definitely think that non-lethal weapons need to be reconsidered. iirc, there are studies that suggest that the introduction of non-lethal weapons to police forces increases the incidents of use of force against civilians. It's not hard to imagine how this might happen. The Boston Police Dept stopped using paintball guns for crowd control after a girl was killed by being struck in the eye, for just one example.

As for guns... I dunno. Obviously, there are police forces in other countries that manage without guns, but they police societies that aren't up to their armpits in guns. A police officer was shot in Annapolis, MD just this morning. An officer in Boston was shot in the face while making a traffic stop a couple of weeks ago. I think both of those guys are alive in part because they and their colleagues were armed.

3. No more "self defense" or "I was in fear" justification for deadly force by police.

This is a tough nut to crack. I think part of the answer lies in not relying so much on the officer's account of the incident. That's the theory behind dashboard and body cameras. Obviously, those aren't a total solution, but I think they'll help. The proliferation of cell phone cameras is clearly helping too (we probably wouldn't even know about Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, or Walter Scott if civilians hadn't gotten the events on video).

 

[Commodore]

The conduct of the second officer underscores the point that this is not just a case of a few rogue bad apples. This issue is coast-to-coast... NYC to LA... Northern states, Southern ones, the Midwest, East coast, West coast, and everything in between. It's not "a few bad cops" that are spoling the reputations of the rest of the angelic pure-as-the-driven-snow cops. It's the other way around. They're mostly bad, and the "good" ones are the exception, rather than the rule.

I would like to see States choose (or the Fed govt force them to choose) one of the following, to substantially reduce these incidents:

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work. Either move to the precinct where you work, or if you dont want to move, then transfer to your home-precinct. Or quit and make room for locals to get the jobs. Many of these inner city neighborhoods could use the local high paying jobs for the economy. Plus cops will care much more about improving their own neighborhood. Also police will treat their neighbors much more considerately and carefully, and the neighbors will respond much better to cops that they know. As far as the effect on officer safety goes, I say public safety has to outweigh officer safety. Be a valuable, helpful member of your community, don't be a jerk and you won't have to worry about people knowing where you live.

2. No guns or tazers for regular officers. Nightstick, mace, radio, flashlight, maybe even dogs in the cruisers if they want (plenty of shelter dogs needing homes). If a situation calls for guns then you have to call for a Captain or a SWAT team who will have special training and authority to use firearms/tazers. That way everything is documented on video and the suspect will be more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming armed force. You also get rid of the "his word against mine." Less deaths all around.

3. No more "self defense" or "I was in fear" justification for deadly force by police. Police can use deadly force only to protect members of the public from imminent death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is never justified to protect only the officer and/or other officers. This way, if a guy is waving a gun around or shooting in public there will be plenty of witnesses, and we avoid these self-serving police reports where the only two witnesses are the shooting-officer and the dead guy. Again, public safety is more important than officer safety. If you want to keep your "right to self defense" then fine, get a new job. There are plenty of people that need a good government job.

Again, pick one. Any one of these will acheive the desired effect, and every state can pick the one that tailors best to their needs.

Number 1 on your list is perfectly reasonable, but 2 and 3 as they are currently worded would be unfeasible and severely hamper an officer's ability to do his/her job.

For number 2, a perfect example of why officers need to carry firearms is the North Hollywood shootout in the 90s. If the initial officers responding didn't have firearms, they would not have been able to pin the suspects down long enough for the SWAT team to arrive with the necessary firepower to end the shootout and the suspects would have probably escaped.

For 3, the main problem I have is how you worded it. This part:

Deadly force is never justified to protect only the officer and/or other officers.

is very unreasonable. The way it is currently worded, it sounds like if a suspect is only shooting at police officers then the police shouldn't be allowed to use their own firearms to protect themselves. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, no, you guys are fossils ... Also, county residency requirements are very different from precinct/neighborhood requirements.

BTW when was the last shooting of an unarmed person by police in your town?

County residency requirements are basically the same for County Deputies, which in large part share duties with Village Deputies because overlapping jurisdiction. County Deputies must live in county, my Village Deputies must live in the village.

My village has had no officer related shootings in my lifetime that I am aware of.

 

[Sonereal]

1. Require police to live in the precinct where they work. Either move to the precinct where you work, or if you dont want to move, then transfer to your home-precinct. Or quit and make room for locals to get the jobs. Many of these inner city neighborhoods could use the local high paying jobs for the economy. Plus cops will care much more about improving their own neighborhood. Also police will treat their neighbors much more considerately and carefully, and the neighbors will respond much better to cops that they know. As far as the effect on officer safety goes, I say public safety has to outweigh officer safety. Be a valuable, helpful member of your community, don't be a jerk and you won't have to worry about people knowing where you live.

This seems reasonable enough on its face, but I feel that implementation could be difficult in truly crime-ridden areas.

2. No guns or tazers for regular officers. Nightstick, mace, radio, flashlight, maybe even dogs in the cruisers if they want (plenty of shelter dogs needing homes). If a situation calls for guns then you have to call for a Captain or a SWAT team who will have special training and authority to use firearms/tazers. That way everything is documented on video and the suspect will be more likely to surrender when faced with overwhelming armed force. You also get rid of the "his word against mine." Less deaths all around.

I disagree. The people we task to carry out the law should be at least as well-armed as the people in the areas they operate in.

3. No more "self defense" or "I was in fear" justification for deadly force by police. Police can use deadly force only to protect members of the public from imminent death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is never justified to protect only the officer and/or other officers. This way, if a guy is waving a gun around or shooting in public there will be plenty of witnesses, and we avoid these self-serving police reports where the only two witnesses are the shooting-officer and the dead guy. Again, public safety is more important than officer safety. If you want to keep your "right to self defense" then fine, get a new job. There are plenty of people that need a good government job.

This is a legitimately terrible idea.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For number 2, a perfect example of why officers need to carry firearms is the North Hollywood shootout in the 90s.

I'm glad you mentioned the famous North Hollywood Shootout because I believe it bolsters my point. First of all, that incident was a bank robbery, not a rape, arson, or murder. The shooting began only because they were confronted by police. If the police didn't have guns there would have been no shootout at all. Also, this incident was almost 20 years ago and is still widely regarded as the worst such incident in history. I think it is telling that the justification for police having guns is some 20-years ago worst-case-ever incident, rather than something contemporaneous or at least commonplace.

If the initial officers responding didn't have firearms, they would not have been able to pin the suspects down long enough for the SWAT team to arrive with the necessary firepower to end the shootout and the suspects would have probably escaped.

Yes, and then no one would have been shot or killed, including the suspects. You say they would have escaped. Escaped what? Being executed for stealing money? They robbed the bank, they stole money. Even if they were allowed to "escape" the police could have followed them, investigated them and eventually tracked them down. And this could have been done without having a wild west shootout in downtown Los Angeles with multiple casualties.

For 3, the main problem I have is how you worded it. This part:



is very unreasonable. The way it is currently worded, it sounds like if a suspect is only shooting at police officers then the police shouldn't be allowed to use their own firearms to protect themselves. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

OK, understandable... So how would you word it?

Are you thinking the police are driving down the street, minding their own business and some nut-job starts shooting at them from across the street or from his bedroom window? Is that the hypothetical you are worried about? If so, then how would they respond to this situation if they didn't have guns at all? Or how would they respond if it was one of their own children shooting at them?

I disagree. The people we task to carry out the law should be at least as well-armed as the people in the areas they operate in.

Criminals will always be better armed than police, for a number of reasons. As the police escalate their armaments, the criminals will always respond by escalating as well.

 

[classical_hero]

Please observe that another cop in my video is black. Who had naturally covered his white co worker. So much for racial solidarity.

So you must stick up only for those of your skin colour? Just wow.

 

[Commodore]

OK, understandable... So how would you word it?

Are you thinking the police are driving down the street, minding their own business and some nut-job starts shooting at them from across the street or from his bedroom window? Is that the hypothetical you are worried about? If so, then how would they respond to this situation if they didn't have guns at all? Or how would they respond if it was one of their own children shooting at them? Criminals will always be better armed than police, for a number of reasons. As the police escalate their armaments, the criminals will always respond by escalating as well.

No, it's not that hypothetical I'm worried about. It's just the way you worded it makes it sound like if there is a confrontation between only the cops and the suspect and the suspect decides to use deadly force, the cops would not be allowed to reciprocate.

So the way I would amend your number 3 (I say amend, because I do agree with the "spirit" of what you are trying to say) would be the police cannot initiate the use of deadly force just because they feel their own personal safety is at risk. Basically, the cops don't shoot unless a citizen is in imminent danger, or the suspect shoots at the cops first.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, and then no one would have been shot or killed, including the suspects. You say they would have escaped. Escaped what? Being executed for stealing money? They robbed the bank, they stole money. Even if they were allowed to "escape" the police could have followed them, investigated them and eventually tracked them down. And this could have been done without having a wild west shootout in downtown Los Angeles with multiple casualties.

BINGO!!!!!!

 

[Hygro]

BINGO!!!!!!

2nded, damn. Never even bothered to even think about it before.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is a damned good reason most non-redneck police departments(actually, most redneck police departments included) don't let police engage in high-speed pursuits in their squads. Cops, suspects, and 3rd parties have the nasty tendency of winding up dead at the some point during those when the crime at issue was oftentimes something like grand theft auto.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Another example is the Watertown, Massachusetts shootout a couple of years ago, in pursuit of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, which was kind of a mess.

One police officer was seriously wounded by friendly fire and nearly died; he was hit in the upper thigh, too high up the leg for a tourniquet, and an ER nurse said he lost his entire blood volume in the field. I don't know how a person survives that, but I guess they can. (Coincidentally, one of the officers who received a commendation for saving the wounded officer is the same guy who was shot in the face a couple of weeks ago.) Two other officers escaped injury when the pickup truck they were driving was erroneously reported stolen and was fired upon.

A report issued by the Commonwealth on the events cites the lack of fire discipline among police officers (see below). Ironically, one of the criticisms in the report is that officers who initially arrived on scene were unable to get their tactical weapons out of the secure mounts they store them in.

Spoiler :

IMPROVEMENT AREA 4.3
Lack of Weapons Discipline

Weapons discipline was lacking by the multitude of law enforcement officers in the field during both the firefight with the two suspects near Dexter Avenue and Laurel Streets in Watertown, as well as during the capture of the second suspect who was hiding in a winterized boat in a residential backyard.

Although initial responding officers practiced appropriate weapons discipline while they were engaged in the firefight with the suspects, additional officers arriving on scene near the conclusion of the firefight fired weapons toward the vicinity of the suspects without necessarily having a target lined up and identified, or having appropriately aimed their weapons. Officers lining both sides of the street also fired upon the second suspect as he fled the scene in a vehicle. Both instances created dangerous crossfire situations.

On the other side of the coin, the report wasn't all bad news:

Spoiler :

BEST PRACTICE 4.4
Effective Response by Watertown Police

The two Watertown PD officers who were first to respond to the Watertown neighborhood where the suspects were located performed remarkably well, taking heavy fire while pinning the suspects in one location. Additional responding Watertown officers also took heavy fire, and were able to subdue one suspect by tackling him to the ground. All four officers demonstrated incredible bravery and discipline under pressure, maintaining communications with their dispatch center, and critically wounding the suspects. Their effective tactical response ensured the residents of
the neighborhood were not hurt.

and regarding the wounded officer,

Spoiler :

BEST PRACTICE 4.8
Decision to Transport Wounded Officer to Nearest Hospital

Given the criticality of his wounds, Watertown EMS personnel made the decision to transport the wounded officer to the nearest hospital, Mount Auburn, rather than to the nearest trauma center, which was located a few minutes further away. This decision placed the officer in a medical facility a few minutes sooner than if he had been transported to a trauma center, and enabled medical personnel to save his life.

BEST PRACTICE 4.9
Ability of Mount Auburn Hospital Emergency Department to Receive Critically Wounded Patient

Although the hospital is not a trauma center, the Mount Auburn Hospital Emergency Department staff was prepared to receive, and able to save the life of the critically wounded Transit PD officer.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree that this a good idea. However, it's really easy to envision a scenario where it just isn't practical. For example, a poor town may not have the money to provide incentives, moving expenses, a higher salary, etc. I would worry that this requirement would mean that wealthy, safe towns and neighborhoods would just have more and better policing, which is probably already true. Maybe there could be some kind of Federal grants system, or something.

It's still bizarre to me that American towns are expected to fund stuff like this. No wonder things are in such a mess, when some towns are expected to hire police on a budget counted in bits of string, and others have so much more funding than they need they start building functioning replica AT-ATs just for something to do.

The US is can be a weird, weird country sometimes. Hyper-localist in some respects, but with this great, overbearing imperial government sitting in the middle of it. It's like somebody looked at 16th century Germany, then at the Soviet Union, and then said "Y'know what? Let's take the worst elements of both, scramble 'em up, and see what happens." The UK isn't perfect- I'm an advocate of leaving it, after all- but we've at least managed to avoid this particular kind of weirdness.