Ferguson

[warpus]

The avatar is of darth vader, but when I read the posts I can only ever hear dark helmet.

 

[classical_hero]

The police shouldn't have have the right to beat you or shoot you simply because you resist an order; this should be up to the nature of the order, and it should be up to the police's discretion to measure when to use violence or not. The tension of the situation shouldn't legitimize violence, either. A parking ticket is a parking ticket. It seems like you are very pragmatic about this (that one should, in the current climate, follow orders because the police is irrationally and impractically violent) but we are arguing for the police not to be those things. Are you aware of this?

Reaching for the officers weapon isn't cause enough for you to react like the cop did? I just wonder when can a cop use a gun or a weapon?

 

[Borachio]

But frankly, this is all I'm saying. Resisting cops is seldom a good idea. If you do it, I don't feel sorry for you...except in those very rare cases that you have a good reason to. Those are exceedingly rare.

While not agreeing with cops shooting people (in fact, I don't think the police should be routinely armed at all, but that's probably not a viable proposition in gun-mad USA), I strangely find myself agreeing with you on this one specific point.

Rule #1: always cooperate with the police. It's really foolish to try anything else. If the systemic controls that the police are supposed to operate under aren''t working, it still, or rather especially then, cannot be a good idea to be anything but obsequiously compliant with every request they make.

If you want to make a point about how the police should operate (and there are many such points to be made), the arena for doing so is not when directly confronted with a policeman, especially a policeman with a gun.

I, unlike you, do, however, feel sorry for those who think it's a good idea to risk it.

But rather than "are exceedingly rare", I'd go with "absolutely never happen".

And yet I still sympathize with a largely black population feeling resentful of a largely white police force which is "in authority" over them.

 

[tetley]

The people who made police ambushes were not being directly confronted by a policeman. Is that the right time to confront corrupt, abusive policemen, then? Because those have a higher success rate?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by police ambushes. How is it possible to ambush someone without directly confronting them?

If I were to be faced with police corruption, what I wouldn't do is go up to the policeman concerned, in the street, and poke him in the stomach.

Sometimes, you know, you have to proceed strategically.

But I don't understand. Is this an outrageously unreasonable suggestion, then?

 

[tetley]

There have been incidents of gunmen ambushing and killing police. One lone gunman killed 4 in Seattle. I won't dispute you that resisting police when they confront you will very rarely produce good results for you. So...is that the right action, then? To kiss their a** and ambush someone else later?

Of course that question is somewhat rhetorical, but the point is that whatever you do, someone is going to poo-poo it. The only consistent message I keep getting on this forum is that if the cops walk all over you, then you're just SOL. Roll over dead and take it.

 

[Borachio]

Well, I wasn't thinking of ambushing them at all. I was more thinking along the lines of getting someone in a position of authority to take a serious look at police procedures. Or complaining to the Press.

But yeah. Ambush them if you feel strongly enough about it, and you feel that will work out well for you.

 

[JohnRM]

We have the problem where cops are ordering you not to film them, to give over your phone and camera, to disperse protests and forfeit your right to assemble, to comply with their obstruction of evidence.

This is certainly a concern, which I have previously addressed. Provided that bystanders are a reasonable distance away from the scene, there should be no problem with filming the encounter.

So in other words, yeah, as far as you are concerned those guys should have gotten up out of their wheelchairs as they were told, and the beating they got is fine by you.

I do not plan to address a specific case that I am not familiar with.

By the way, the one time I considered filing a complaint, just for the experience of it, I consider myself lucky to have gotten out of the police station.

"You hate cops, and cops know that only criminals hate cops, therefor the cop who pulled a gun on you was totally right in doing so because you're obviously a criminal. If you weren't a criminal you would love cops, and have no complaint. So, do you really have a complaint?"

You went to the cops to file a complaint against cops? I am not surprised by the reaction. You go to internal affairs or some similar agency or organization.

As to filing a lawsuit, if I had the financial horsepower to line up enough attorney power to compete with the city attorney and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department legal division I would just buy a third world country and install my own police force there. The idea sounds great as a cop out if you don't really want to think about the issue, but in practice it's an absurdity.

There are plenty of bleeding-heart organizations ready to step up and take up your case at the slightest hint of a credible complaint, and often with lack thereof.

Before you even get started you face the real world fact that it is an accepted precedent that 'the officer is a trained observer, so if your testimony contradicts his, his will be automatically accepted in the absence of other evidence'. In short, your attorney will have to prove every word you say with some added corroboration, and the officer can describe events however he wants.

This is simply not true. You just don't hear about most of the cases in which the complainant "wins" because they are settled out of court.

The police shouldn't have have the right to beat you or shoot you simply because you resist an order; this should be up to the nature of the order, and it should be up to the police's discretion to measure when to use violence or not. The tension of the situation shouldn't legitimize violence, either. A parking ticket is a parking ticket. It seems like you are very pragmatic about this (that one should, in the current climate, follow orders because the police is irrationally and impractically violent) but we are arguing for the police not to be those things. Are you aware of this?

Look, if the cop is rational and disciplined, resisting arrest and fighting the cop are only going to escalate the situation--bad for you. If the cop is irrational and undisciplined, resisting arrest and fighting the cop are only going to escalate the situation--bad for you. As long as you're not getting hurt, why escalate? Just follow orders and take up the matter with higher authorities.

Additionally, you ignore that when threatened on one's life, one may or may not act irrationally. This is up to the police to control. There should not be a default threat of beatings or shots just for not following orders. That is not the way things should work. If so, the suspect is always threatened on his life when being approached by the police and I just noted to you that threatened people act irrationally and that it is the police's moral burden to contain the tension of such a situation. Your moral imperative, while pragmatic in the current status quo, is a wrong state of things and should be changed.

I have never taken the position that beatings/shootings should be the first response. I have only indicated a lack of sympathy for those who resist/fight the police. Law enforcement should pursue alternatives, if possible, but I would never ask them to put their lives at risk to do so.

The police is able to work properly in Denmark, why aren't they able to in the US? Explaining this with American civic culture isn't a legitimate argument, because the whole point is to change this culture. The status quo should be changed.

I cannot speak to the police organizations of Denmark and therefore cannot make an accurate comparison of the two.

And if it's a gun problem, limit the accessibility to guns.

That is impractical, politically.

It's a better source than any you provided, innit?

Providing non-credible, unreliable sources is NOT better than providing no source at all. I do not need to provide sources for my opinions. I am the ultimate source for that. If you provide sources, you are presumed to be attempting to prove a fact. If you are attempting to prove a fact, I would expect a source to be at least somewhat credible. Beyond that, I would also expect it to be relevant (this in regard to the YouTube video).

As a supporter of Darren Wilson, and law enforcement in general, I receive far too many responses to my posts to warrant reading through every single nonsensical post and follow every single link to irrelevant "sources". Your posts have not been that bad, which is why we are still discussing the matter, but you value Wiki as a source, and that is fine. I absolutely do not. Too many people have the ability to edit.

JohnRM is defending arbitrary police authority.

While using a Darth Vader avatar.

It's true, irony is dead.

A true case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

With respect to the recent disorder, the blocking of transportation routes, and especially the terrorists blowing up churches, burning police cruisers, and plotting attacks on officials, I am prepared to support a Vader-esque reaction.

While not agreeing with cops shooting people (in fact, I don't think the police should be routinely armed at all, but that's probably not a viable proposition in gun-mad USA), I strangely find myself agreeing with you on this one specific point.

etc.

We are in agreement on this point. In major cities and other areas of high population density, it may be worthwhile to try disarming some officers. It will never work in the rural areas, because the response time of armed officers would be too great. However, the first time an unarmed officer is killed in the line of duty is the last time I would support sending one out onto the streets unarmed. All officers working shifts after dark should be armed.

I, unlike you, do, however, feel sorry for those who think it's a good idea to risk it.

But rather than "are exceedingly rare", I'd go with "absolutely never happen".

And yet I still sympathize with a largely black population feeling resentful of a largely white police force which is "in authority" over them.

I cannot speak to the mentality of the black community. I have never claimed that they do not have a legitimate gripe. Whatever legitimate gripe they may have does not mean that Darren Wilson has to burn for it. It does not mean that Mike Brown is not a thug and a thief who resisted and fought a police officer. It does not justify the reaction that we have seen in Ferguson and many other places.

 

[Commodore]

Filing a lawsuit against cops is an uphill climb. The judge can toss the case for any number of reasons, the big one being sovereign immunity. If you actually get to trial, a judge or a jury is likely going to give the cop a good head start on credibility whether warranted or not.

You're right, but what's the alternative? Creating so many regulations and making the police more vulnerable to lawsuits so that every officer out there will be so worried about whether or not their actions will be considered justified that they become afraid to do their jobs?

Given the choice between the two, I'll take the system we have now because if I ever end up in a situation where my life depends on police action, I don't want them hesitating because they are worried about lawsuits or regulations.

 

[tetley]

Actually, the #1 reason I'm saddened by ambushes is not that it does not work out well for them, but the injustice of it--and injustice is the entire point of the protests. Some causes are worth dying for--I get that. Many here don't...I do. A corrupt cop deals out injustice, so the victim---who never would have done anything in the first place if the injustice was not done in the first place--goes off and kills other cops, who were not the ones who did it. The guilty party gets off while the victim and several others who are guilty by association only get killed. That's even more unjust than the way it started.

 

[tetley]

where my life depends on police action,

Our lives depend on police action too much. That is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do not plan to address a specific case that I am not familiar with.

And if a case looks like it will make your position untenable you will close the viewports of dark helmet and scream 'lalalalalalalal' until it goes away so that you can stay unfamiliar with it. I know the type well.

You went to the cops to file a complaint against cops? I am not surprised by the reaction. You go to internal affairs or some similar agency or organization.

Sorry. So now I need to become more familiar with distinguishing amongst cops. As I have said many times, if cops can't police themselves why should they be allowed to police anything? I did go to a different breed of thug, since it was a state cop who pulled the gun I reported him to the county cops. But from where I stand cops are cops so 'go find their internal affairs cops' is not my thing. I'll stick to 'calling cops is always a bad idea, solve your own problems'.

 

[onejayhawk]

And if a case looks like it will make your position untenable you will close the viewports of dark helmet and scream 'lalalalalalalal' until it goes away so that you can stay unfamiliar with it. I know the type well.

Sorry. So now I need to become more familiar with distinguishing amongst cops. As I have said many times, if cops can't police themselves why should they be allowed to police anything? I did go to a different breed of thug, since it was a state cop who pulled the gun I reported him to the county cops. But from where I stand cops are cops so 'go find their internal affairs cops' is not my thing. I'll stick to 'calling cops is always a bad idea, solve your own problems'.

They policed Ferguson, MO, but you complain about that. Are you telling me you plan to join the guys with bumper stickers that read, "Security by Smith & Wesson." That is the direction you are pointing.

J

 

[Angst]

Reaching for the officers weapon isn't cause enough for you to react like the cop did? I just wonder when can a cop use a gun or a weapon?

I'm not talking about this specific incident, actually, I have not personally followed the Brown trial so I have no opinions on that topic in any way. I am talking about the general attitude of American police.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Given the choice between the two, I'll take the system we have now because if I ever end up in a situation where my life depends on police action, I don't want them hesitating because they are worried about lawsuits or regulations.

This is a widely held perspective. Could you speculate on these situations briefly? Your life depends on police action...how exactly does that come about?

If you are a murder victim and the police "solve the crime" you are still dead.

If you are robbed at gunpoint and the police arrive on scene in an amazingly timely fashion and the robber flees at the sound of sirens, the only reason you are alive to hear the sirens is because the robber wanted to not kill you. If he didn't care one way or the other, killing you and stripping your corpse is far more efficient and lower risk, so the 'timely arrival of police' didn't actually save you. In fact the sudden onset of sirens may prompt a robber who wouldn't have shot you to panic and do so.

If you fall out in a public place and need cpr you are far more likely to be saved by an emt or fireman, and even far more likely than that you better count on some cpr trained passerby.

If you have created such a toxic relationship that another person has become your deadly enemy and they are closing in for the kill, well first, shame on you, but second, if you don't have any means of dealing with it other than 'I hope the cops get here and save me' you are probably going to die.

If a bear wanders down from the hills into your back yard because of the drought and starts drinking from your swimming pool, it is actually animal control officers who should be 'saving' you, and if you stay in your house it won't be your life they are saving it will maybe be your patio furniture. (This for fans of the cops who recently shot a bear that was mauling the homeowner who went out to film said bear immediately after calling 911...admittedly the cops got there first and did save his life...to the detriment of the gene pool...and the bear)

So please, tell me what life threatening situation you might get in that cops might save you from that merits letting them run roughshod over the constitutional rights of everyone including you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They policed Ferguson, MO, but you complain about that. Are you telling me you plan to join the guys with bumper stickers that read, "Security by Smith & Wesson." That is the direction you are pointing.

J

Ferguson Missouri is definitely a place where police have not policed themselves and should not be allowed to police anything else.

I suggest reading what you quote.

 

[MobBoss]

Ferguson Missouri is definitely a place where police have not policed themselves and should not be allowed to police anything else.

I suggest reading what you quote.

Who then, would do the job of the police?

The rioters?

 

[tetley]

In Mexico, where the police are well known to be corrupt, groups of vigilantes have sprung up who have stepped up and filled the role the Mexican police abdicated. On occasion, the Mexican police have been the subjects of vigilante justice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who then, would do the job of the police?

The rioters?

Hmmmm...properly led and directed police maybe. That's a concept.

The LAPD, while not perfect, has made huge strides since the last LA riots. If the officers who resigned because they missed the good old days of running rampant through the community like a mongol hoard had just been shot on the spot instead of being preferentially hired by other law enforcement organizations Southern California would be in pretty good shape today.

Of course the vast majority of 'the job of the police' could actually be left undone with no particular loss. The majority of 'police work' can effectively be described as 'collecting taxes at random, but mostly from the people who least benefit from government'.

 

[Angst]

Reaching for the officers weapon isn't cause enough for you to react like the cop did? I just wonder when can a cop use a gun or a weapon?

However, and I say this not knowing the case itself, the cop shouldn't draw a weapon outright. Doing that threatens people. Threatened people may act irrationally. I'm not siding with Brown here, I'm just noting basic psychology and why the current standard approach might be way off.