It just surprises me there's no proper regulation of law enforcement in the US.  In most other countries around the world, police within that country are federally regulated, meaning that the same standards apply everywhere and some sort of body has the power to step in and take action.  It seems that departments in the US, especially larger ones, can just get away with investigating themselves when something goes wrong.  Apparently it takes what happened in Ferguson, including nights of multiple riots where you have live pictures being beamed from a US city, which, if they were missing the fancy news graphics, you'd be perfectly reasonable in thinking were coming from a third world country, for the federal government to even hint that they might get involved.  I think that the FBI and the DOJ should do more to enforce standards and investigate incidents.  It all seems really cloudy when things like this remain contained to the city, county or state in which the incident took place.  The common thing then seems to be that everyone knows everybody, from the states/districts attorney to the mayors and politicians to the officers and supervisors themselves.

 

It just surprises me there's no proper regulation of law enforcement in the US.  In most other countries around the world, police within that country are federally regulated, meaning that the same standards apply everywhere and some sort of body has the power to step in and take action.  It seems that departments in the US, especially larger ones, can just get away with investigating themselves when something goes wrong.  Apparently it takes what happened in Ferguson, including nights of multiple riots where you have live pictures being beamed from a US city, which, if they were missing the fancy news graphics, you'd be perfectly reasonable in thinking were coming from a third world country, for the federal government to even hint that they might get involved.  I think that the FBI and the DOJ should do more to enforce standards and investigate incidents.  It all seems really cloudy when things like this remain contained to the city, county or state in which the incident took place.  The common thing then seems to be that everyone knows everybody, from the states/districts attorney to the mayors and politicians to the officers and supervisors themselves.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "layer cake federalism"? That would answer a lot of the points you bring up. It has to do with the fact that government in the US is very much broken up into state, local, and federal sectors. Funding comes from the federal to the state to the local level. It is intrinsically broken up that way. What is different in the US from European countries or other countries with similar forms of government, is in the US, the idea of statehood and states' rights is very ardent. In this way, what happens on a federal level is very much removed from incidents with the police, which is very much a local issue. When you say "most other countries," no other country has a system with individual states with as much latitude as "states" in the US. A lot of people in the world that look critically upon things that happen in the US, like police brutality, no gay marriage, etc., is the fact that very many of these things are left up to states to decide, not the federal government, which is why it seems so removed. States are even responsible for running presidential elections. This is why things in one part of the country can be so different than another, providing the illusion to the world that because one state has an issue with one thing, the whole country does, which is not the case. States are free to make their own laws as long as they comply with federal mandates. At the end of the day, all the federal government can really do is not give them funding for certain things. In "most other countries," there is not the same system and thus what happens at a national or federal level has a stronger impact at a local level. The issue of law enforcement is very much a local issue, and is inherently removed from federal oversight.

 

I believe the media loves to have a field day any time one of these incidents happens. Every time one of these incidents happens and there is a lot of pressure on law enforcement to make changes to appease the media, the country just gets weaker. Yes It reminds me of the movie A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson's character says: "You friggin' people. You have no idea how to defend the nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."

Yes, bad things happen every now and then, but in the age we live in, we need the police. We are too comfortable in our ivory towers watching CNN. That is the real issue.

 

 

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Senatov

 

Well if the problems there, why not report on it? You can have whatever opinion you want on the way they cover it, but reporting on the human condition will always be controversial.

Well neither of us have evidence, so its not hypocritical. Concluding that one line of work has undergone slight systemic psychological changes is more logical than a nation-wide boom of suicidal criminals. This whole time you've been shooting me down for not having evidence, but you have presented me with none. You've been calling me out out on making cultural observations, so I'd be a fool to let you do so without holding you to the same standard you've been holding me to.

Would you send your friend to jail if there were no consequences to the alternative? Cop A shoots a suspect, and tells investigators that the suspect was reaching for his gun. You found no fingerprints on the gun or the holster, and the suspect was shot at point-blank. Very minor injuries to the officer indicating a struggle. You're friends with the supervisor in charge of him and he says Cop A is straight-arrow. Who do you believe? That's just a random scenario but that's sometimes the reality. Police shouldn't police themselves, especially when there's conflicts of interest.

 

As for the DAs, you're not entirely correct. I'm sure you'll hate the progressive news site, but its worth a read: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/11/lawrence-odonnell-rips-st-louis-prosecutor-for-making-it-impossible-for-darren-wilson-to-fail/

Right indisputable facts...so we're not disputing right now? Watching countless incident videos, reading plenty of articles and interviews, and analyzing personal experience is enough to paint a picture of a particular culture. In this case, police culture. You don't need a statistic that says "X % of cops are bad people" to know that systemic problems exist in an entity that interacts with us every single day.

If we held shootings of police officers to shootings of citizens, you'd be pretty frustrated right now. Out of all the interactions with citizens, how often does a police officer get shot? And why should the media care about an obviously justified shooting? There's no cultural analysis or systemic problem to be addressed, besides local news, it would be a completely pointless story on CNN and would actually be irresponsible journalism. The news doesn't cover Michael Brown because they think his life matters more than a police officer, they cover it because a large amount of people believe there is more to the overarching story than just a shooting. (Also, look on CNN. Their top story is a police officer that was shot and killed, so your point isn't even valid in the first place).

So you're allowed to make cultural analysis, but I'm not? Are you sure its not that darn media hyping up drug dealers? COPS (the show) only shows you the interesting stuff, right? Of course I know that drug dealers often have guns, but do you see how futile that point can be? You only let a picture be painted when you're willing to accept what the outcome looks like. And yeah, if someone has a dangerous criminal record police should take every precaution. Nobody's arguing that. But I can pull up plenty of stories when that's not the case, and the same gear was used.

This is the internet, we're all anonymous. I have no interest in what real-life experience an anonymous internet forum user claims to have. But if you're willing to swap experience, my brother lost three friends clearing buildings in Iraq. I know how dangerous it is, if his PTSD is any indication.

So you say that officers don't handle situations correctly from time to time, but yet you try to shut me down when I suggest  that perhaps there's room for improvement in the training? So your overall point seems to be "Cops aren't perfect but hey, what're you gonna do?" instead of  "cops have a tough job and you shouldn't judge them". Is that really so much better?

And my "getting out of the car" example was based on countless cases where an officer has ordered a suspect to get out of his car, and then proceeded to illegally search them without probable cause. So even then, the officer is still the one that needs to be "educated". So you're right, an officer can order you to get out of your car, but in a lot of the cases I've seen, that's often not the end of the encounter. 

I'm not saying don't report on it. The way they are reporting on it isn't controversial, it is just altogether wrong. Look at the Michael Brown case, within hours of that story coming out the media was already reporting it as a white vs black issue then after the months of investigation by the FBI and DOJ they came out with their final report that said Michael Brown's race played no part in the way Officer Wilson decision making and was cleared of all wrong doing. That didn't matter though, in the public's eyes Officer Wilson was a racist murdering cop, the damage to his reputation was already done and there was little he could do to reverse that. That is the kind of reporting I am talking about and it is becoming more and more common. Every incident involving a black suspect and a white officer is reported as "white officer kills black man", doesn't matter how much evidence or facts have come out yet, that is the first thing that is reported.

 

I would send a friend to jail if I had to, it is called integrity. Luckily I will most likely never have to face that problem because police officers call another unit if they know the suspect or victim.

 

The facts I was talking about was case law and legal standings. I gave you case law from the supreme court and you called it out as me saying "police officers have a tough job so don't judge" which not anywhere close to what I actually said.

 

The media should care about justifiable shootings because it will give contrast to the controversial ones and show people how small of a percentage those shootings actually make up. Because now there are people like you who say "look at all the videos the media plays showing this stuff, this proves there is a systematic problem with law enforcement" when in reality these are only a few controversial (and usually still justifiable) shootings out of hundreds of obviously justifiable shootings. And how does CNN's top story have anything to do with my point? I'm not saying that they don't care about cops, I'm saying the way they are reporting on it is giving a severely skewed view (intentionally or unintentionally).

 

My analysis is based on frequent patterns and what is almost considered to be common knowledge. And you are still missing my point about the use of military equipment. I am saying that why should we wait for someone to get hurt to call out a SWAT team? If the person has a felony warrant for their arrest (regardless if it is a violent crime or not) then they have more than likely done something pretty serious. Add on the fact that you are trying to arrest them in their home where they have access to everything they own and have the defensive advantage it just adds to the danger. The person who has committed a felony obviously has no problem committing serious offenses so how do I know they aren't willing to commit another one against me?

You were the one calling me out on my experiences and telling me "unless you've done it yourself" that I should shut up, so if you aren't interested in hearing about it then don't ask. But don't worry I won't bore you; I am not interested in sharing my resume with you, I was being sarcastic when I made that comment.

 

Most of the time when I don't agree with what a police officer has done I think it is an individual issue with the police officer and not a training issue. Also just because I don't agree with the way they handled it doesn't mean that the way they did it was wrong, it is just not the same way I think I would have handled it if I were in his shoes. I am also not against improving training, I am always for improving training because training requirements always change. My whole point out of that was that even though I don't agree with officers all the time I don't think it proves there is a systemic problem.

 

So now you are changing the scenario? Originally you said that if a police officer asks you to step out of your car he is "overstepping his bounds", you didn't say anything about searches. Don't back pedal on what you said now. And here you go with the "based on the case I've seen", how many cases have you actually saw? What is your sample size? I am willing to bet at most you have seen 50 of these cases out of god knows how many traffic stops that happen each year. Based on the a lot of the cases I've seen on Youtube and in the media nearly every call firefighters respond to are fully engulfed house fires does that make it true?

It just surprises me there's no proper regulation of law enforcement in the US.  In most other countries around the world, police within that country are federally regulated, meaning that the same standards apply everywhere and some sort of body has the power to step in and take action.  It seems that departments in the US, especially larger ones, can just get away with investigating themselves when something goes wrong.  Apparently it takes what happened in Ferguson, including nights of multiple riots where you have live pictures being beamed from a US city, which, if they were missing the fancy news graphics, you'd be perfectly reasonable in thinking were coming from a third world country, for the federal government to even hint that they might get involved.  I think that the FBI and the DOJ should do more to enforce standards and investigate incidents.  It all seems really cloudy when things like this remain contained to the city, county or state in which the incident took place.  The common thing then seems to be that everyone knows everybody, from the states/districts attorney to the mayors and politicians to the officers and supervisors themselves.

 

As Senatov said, the reason for that is because the way our government is set up and how we put an emphasis on states' rights. However I don't think it is nearly as bad as people try to make it out to be. In a lot of cases agencies will call in other state or federal agencies to investigate police shootings in their department to make sure there is little chance of bias. I am not sure where this idea of this huge nation wide "good ole boy" system came from because in reality that is far from the truth. Obviously you can point to a couple of cases that received a lot of media coverage and say "look there is a perfect example" the only problem with that is those are a couple of cases out of many and even those stories are pretty rare. I think for the most part the people who think it is a rampant problem across the nation and that all police officers are just watching each others backs are just conspiracy theorist. Is it really that hard to believe that the majority of police officers are doing the right thing?

Considering the increasing ammount of litigious shootings and strange cases like this one, wouldn't it be quite insightful from the US government to create a federal agency that would have for only purpose to actually investigate this kind of case? It wouldn't require that many people, just like two detectives per cases to solve them in the best way possible. Detectives that would be chosen for their perfect carreer in law enforcement, only looking for truth, and ready to get a cop arrested if he was in the wrong.

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Hystery

I'm not saying don't report on it. The way they are reporting on it isn't controversial, it is just altogether wrong. Look at the Michael Brown case, within hours of that story coming out the media was already reporting it as a white vs black issue then after the months of investigation by the FBI and DOJ they came out with their final report that said Michael Brown's race played no part in the way Officer Wilson decision making and was cleared of all wrong doing. That didn't matter though, in the public's eyes Officer Wilson was a racist murdering cop, the damage to his reputation was already done and there was little he could do to reverse that. That is the kind of reporting I am talking about and it is becoming more and more common. Every incident involving a black suspect and a white officer is reported as "white officer kills black man", doesn't matter how much evidence or facts have come out yet, that is the first thing that is reported.

But the DOJ also found systemic and prevailing racism throughout the department, and found incredible racial disparities in traffic stops and arrests. And some of Darren Wilson's statements on the incident were a little questionable, specifically his description of Michael Brown during the incident. So the fact that the community was so outraged about racism in law enforcement is not due to irresponsible journalism, its because of irresponsible law enforcement.

I would send a friend to jail if I had to, it is called integrity. Luckily I will most likely never have to face that problem because police officers call another unit if they know the suspect or victim.

The thin blue line protects itself, that's a common and well-known trend. 

The facts I was talking about was case law and legal standings. I gave you case law from the supreme court and you called it out as me saying "police officers have a tough job so don't judge" which not anywhere close to what I actually said.

Reasons for quoting things are important. What people say is often not the extent of what they mean. By bringing up that case, you're opening up a pandora's box of possible thoughts and emotions of the officer. If you're going to view if from the officer's perspective, then you have to include things like fear, paranoia, anger, and possible racism. But something tells me you don't include those when you use the Supreme Court's standards for judging a shooting. So since I doubt that you actually believe in the Supreme Court's case, it would make sense that you're bringing that case up to try to discourage me from making assumptions about a shooting based on previously documented systemic problems.

The media should care about justifiable shootings because it will give contrast to the controversial ones and show people how small of a percentage those shootings actually make up. Because now there are people like you who say "look at all the videos the media plays showing this stuff, this proves there is a systematic problem with law enforcement" when in reality these are only a few controversial (and usually still justifiable) shootings out of hundreds of obviously justifiable shootings. And how does CNN's top story have anything to do with my point? I'm not saying that they don't care about cops, I'm saying the way they are reporting on it is giving a severely skewed view (intentionally or unintentionally).

Why should a person in New Jersey care that police in lets say- Portland, shot and killed an armed suspect? How does that have any relevance to someone in New Jersey? The media's job isn't to report on every situation to give everyone a completely balanced view of the world, its to report on things that matter to people. Police shooting someone that is unarmed matters, because that could be any of us. If the police kill a dangerous criminal, that holds no significance to the general public, whereas a police shooting of an unarmed person points towards a possible problem that could endanger the lives of every person from coast to coast.

My analysis is based on frequent patterns and what is almost considered to be common knowledge. And you are still missing my point about the use of military equipment. I am saying that why should we wait for someone to get hurt to call out a SWAT team? If the person has a felony warrant for their arrest (regardless if it is a violent crime or not) then they have more than likely done something pretty serious. Add on the fact that you are trying to arrest them in their home where they have access to everything they own and have the defensive advantage it just adds to the danger. The person who has committed a felony obviously has no problem committing serious offenses so how do I know they aren't willing to commit another one against me?

So is my analysis. Police beatings and shootings happen regularly, I would call that a frequent pattern. In fact, there was just a horrific beating of a suspect in my city. His crime? Suspicion of robbery of a $3 piece of pizza. The suspect completely surrendered, and was brutally beaten and charged with resisting arrest. By resisting arrest, they meant shielding himself from punches and night stick blows. After that, the arresting officers falsified the police report. 

I'm not missing your point. You shouldn't wait for someone to get hurt but you shouldn't do shock and awe when there's no reason to think there's any danger to the officers. Its a slippery slope. 

You were the one calling me out on my experiences and telling me "unless you've done it yourself" that I should shut up, so if you aren't interested in hearing about it then don't ask. But don't worry I won't bore you; I am not interested in sharing my resume with you, I was being sarcastic when I made that comment.

No no no, don't flip this on me. You're the one that has been questioning my experience (and age) in almost all of your posts. You've consistently climbed on a high horse without explanation of your experience, and have shut my points down because I don't have training. 

Most of the time when I don't agree with what a police officer has done I think it is an individual issue with the police officer and not a training issue. Also just because I don't agree with the way they handled it doesn't mean that the way they did it was wrong, it is just not the same way I think I would have handled it if I were in his shoes. I am also not against improving training, I am always for improving training because training requirements always change. My whole point out of that was that even though I don't agree with officers all the time I don't think it proves there is a systemic problem

 But yet you disagreed with me when I said that the officers involved in the Gardena shooting shouldn't be cops? So you think its a problem with individual officers, but they shouldn't be fired? So when there's a questionable (or unjustified) shooting, its not the training, its not a systemic issue, its just that one officer....but that doesn't say anything bad about him? Please explain your point. A police officer guns down an unarmed man taking off his hat, what do you think went wrong and what should be done?

 

But the DOJ also found systemic and prevailing racism throughout the department, and found incredible racial disparities in traffic stops and arrests. And some of Darren Wilson's statements on the incident were a little questionable, specifically his description of Michael Brown during the incident. So the fact that the community was so outraged about racism in law enforcement is not due to irresponsible journalism, its because of irresponsible law enforcement.

The thin blue line protects itself, that's a common and well-known trend. 

Reasons for quoting things are important. What people say is often not the extent of what they mean. By bringing up that case, you're opening up a pandora's box of possible thoughts and emotions of the officer. If you're going to view if from the officer's perspective, then you have to include things like fear, paranoia, anger, and possible racism. But something tells me you don't include those when you use the Supreme Court's standards for judging a shooting. So since I doubt that you actually believe in the Supreme Court's case, it would make sense that you're bringing that case up to try to discourage me from making assumptions about a shooting based on previously documented systemic problems.

Why should a person in New Jersey care that police in lets say- Portland, shot and killed an armed suspect? How does that have any relevance to someone in New Jersey? The media's job isn't to report on every situation to give everyone a completely balanced view of the world, its to report on things that matter to people. Police shooting someone that is unarmed matters, because that could be any of us. If the police kill a dangerous criminal, that holds no significance to the general public, whereas a police shooting of an unarmed person points towards a possible problem that could endanger the lives of every person from coast to coast.

So is my analysis. Police beatings and shootings happen regularly, I would call that a frequent pattern. In fact, there was just a horrific beating of a suspect in my city. His crime? Suspicion of robbery of a $3 piece of pizza. The suspect completely surrendered, and was brutally beaten and charged with resisting arrest. By resisting arrest, they meant shielding himself from punches and night stick blows. After that, the arresting officers falsified the police report. 

I'm not missing your point. You shouldn't wait for someone to get hurt but you shouldn't do shock and awe when there's no reason to think there's any danger to the officers. Its a slippery slope. 

No no no, don't flip this on me. You're the one that has been questioning my experience (and age) in almost all of your posts. You've consistently climbed on a high horse without explanation of your experience, and have shut my points down because I don't have training. 

 But yet you disagreed with me when I said that the officers involved in the Gardena shooting shouldn't be cops? So you think its a problem with individual officers, but they shouldn't be fired? So when there's a questionable (or unjustified) shooting, its not the training, its not a systemic issue, its just that one officer....but that doesn't say anything bad about him? Please explain your point. A police officer guns down an unarmed man taking off his hat, what do you think went wrong and what should be done?

Yes, the DOJ did report that but under a separate report. The report they did on the Michael Brown case found that there was no wrong doing on Officer Wilson's part. That is the point I am trying to make about the media, they automatically started reporting it as a racial issue when it wasn't. If they wanted to report on the issue the DOJ brought up in their second report then they should have done that, but they didn't. They wanted to use Officer Wilson as the scapegoat when he did nothing wrong. As for Officer Wilson's description, I don't see an issue with it. He described what he saw from his point of view, he didn't use anything racial he just described his appearance and demeanor from his point of view. If an officer describing a suspect running from him fast like a cheetah would that mean the officer thinks the suspect is an animal? No, he is just trying to describe the suspect's speed in his own words.

 

Please show me this common and well-known trend because apparently I have my head in a hole. Am I missing all these stories and reports of officers covering stuff up for other officers? I would think that if it is so common I would hear about it at least every once and awhile.

 

Graham v Connor says the perspective from a reasonable officer so the state of mind of the officer(s) that were actually there does not fall under that case law, it would be something on its own. The officer's state of mind is often examined and scrutinized and if the defense can find evidence that suggests the officer's state of mind was questionable then they will try to use that in court and they will also heavily scrutinize the officer's past to try and see if they can find any history of questionable states of mind. Like I said though, that is something completely separate from Graham v Connor which solely looks at what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation to help determine whether or not what the officer did was justified or not.

 

I'm not saying that people in New Jersey should care about every police shooting across the nation. What I am saying is the media needs to put some contrast to what they are reporting because most people do not do a lot of research into these topics, they just take what the media feeds them. So if we want people to have a balanced view on an issue then there needs to be a complete picture painted. I don't expect the media to cover every police shooting but when they do cover police shootings and want to try and spin the "police are out of control" story they need to show the entire picture. They need to show how many police shootings are there total, how many are cleared as justifiable, etc. I think people would then realize that these controversial shootings are a very small percentage of the total number of shootings.

 

In 2012 the BLS said there was an estimated total of 780,000 law enforcement officers employed in the US. With that many officers employed you are going to hear about it regularly but that is very different from it happening regularly. Again I point back to my issue with the media coverage. Just because we hear about it all the time doesn't mean that all police officers are running around shooting people like crazy 24/7. So yes, we hear about it on a regular basis but when compared to the total number of use of force cases out there the percentage of controversial uses of force is pretty small. So that brings the question as to whether or not this is a nation-wide, systemic issue with US law enforcement or something that is an issue with the individual officer or individual departments? I think it is more important to look at it on a case by case basis because you might have some agencies such as Ferguson PD that do have systemic problems in the department like the DOJ identified in their report. Then you might have an officer on the other side of the country who does something wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with the department or training he received it is just that he is a bad person and shouldn't be a cop.

 

The difference was when I was asking you about your training and experience I was actually wanting an answer. You, on the other hand, questioned my experience then said you have no interest in knowing what my experience is which is fine, I really don't care if people are interested in my experience but I will use it if it is relevant to what I am talking about.

 

I don't recall you ever asking me if I thought the Gardena officers should be cops (and scrolling back through the comments on that thread confirms this), but if you want my opinion I think that despite the fact I wouldn't have done the same thing that officer should still be a police officer. I would say the biggest thing that went wrong was the victim constantly moving and putting his right hand down by his waistband out of sight from the officers. Things that could have been done differently? Maybe the officers could have positioned themselves a little better to have better over watch of all the individuals. To be honest, other than shooting the guy I would have done pretty much everything the same way if I were in their shoes. They conducted a felony stop of multiple individuals suspected to have just committed a robbery. He was a robbery suspect reaching towards his waist band, what else would a reasonable officer think? Why wait for the suspect to get a shot off before returning fire? This is where Graham v Connor comes into play.

Considering the increasing ammount of litigious shootings and strange cases like this one, wouldn't it be quite insightful from the US government to create a federal agency that would have for only purpose to actually investigate this kind of case? It wouldn't require that many people, just like two detectives per cases to solve them in the best way possible. Detectives that would be chosen for their perfect carreer in law enforcement, only looking for truth, and ready to get a cop arrested if he was in the wrong.

You are in luck, there is already an agency that does exactly what you describe! It is called the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI for short. While this isn't the FBI's sole responsibility they do lead or assist in investigations. There are plenty of state and local agencies that also assist in investigations. Something that people seem to forget is that these federal agents are law enforcement officers too so people who have an issue with the "police policing the police" but want federal agencies to investigate makes no sense to me. Secondly, what makes a federal officer so much better than a state or local officer? Are federal officers somehow exempt from being corrupt or wrong? Do they have some kind of magical power to uncover the truth as opposed to other officers? Next, you say you want to pick officers with "perfect careers" but who gets to pick these guys and how do we know that the people picking the people aren't biased or corrupt? People are always going to have an issue with whatever agency is the one doing the investigating and there will always be claims of corruption and bias.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the FBI is a bad agency or shouldn't be utilized however I don't understand where this "federal agencies are the gods" idea is coming from. And most of the problems people have with state or local agencies performing the investigation could just as easily be a problem with a federal agency. I get the feeling that people view federal officers as Judge Dredd or something where they are emotionless robots who are better than all other officers.

You are in luck, there is already an agency that does exactly what you describe! It is called the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI for short. While this isn't the FBI's sole responsibility they do lead or assist in investigations. There are plenty of state and local agencies that also assist in investigations. Something that people seem to forget is that these federal agents are law enforcement officers too so people who have an issue with the "police policing the police" but want federal agencies to investigate makes no sense to me. Secondly, what makes a federal officer so much better than a state or local officer? Are federal officers somehow exempt from being corrupt or wrong? Do they have some kind of magical power to uncover the truth as opposed to other officers? Next, you say you want to pick officers with "perfect careers" but who gets to pick these guys and how do we know that the people picking the people aren't biased or corrupt? People are always going to have an issue with whatever agency is the one doing the investigating and there will always be claims of corruption and bias.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the FBI is a bad agency or shouldn't be utilized however I don't understand where this "federal agencies are the gods" idea is coming from. And most of the problems people have with state or local agencies performing the investigation could just as easily be a problem with a federal agency. I get the feeling that people view federal officers as Judge Dredd or something where they are emotionless robots who are better than all other officers.

Well, I'm not aware of everything the FBI does, especially considering how fantasized this agency is within popular culture with all the books and movies and TV shows (X-Files!). What makes me think that a federal agent would be better in such situation is that they would, technically, have easier access to performing tools as well as the most relevant evidences for the case they are investigating, on top of their training that is most likely much more complex than the random officer in the street received at the academy. I'm not saying that all of them are white knights, just like not all cops are bad guys. But if the investigators were chosen for their perfect carreer (as in, never been involved in any litigious case or shooting, awarded in the line of duty and so on), I'm pretty sure they would seek for truth and justice, and would not hesitate to arrest a cop. At least more than a local agency investigator that could, let's say, close the case a bit more easily to help a fellow officer. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is happening all the time, and I don't believe all cops are bad guys. Hell, my own dad is a cop in the motorcycle police department. But not everything is all black or all white. Not all cops are good either.

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Hystery

Please show me this common and well-known trend because apparently I have my head in a hole. Am I missing all these stories and reports of officers covering stuff up for other officers? I would think that if it is so common I would hear about it at least every once and awhile.

It's part of police culture. Either you're unwilling to see it or you're just not going to. It doesn't meant that cops literally cover up wrong-doing, but of course they will take the word of the officer over the word of the victim. That's the problem, when the police police themselves, they lose a certain amount of objectivity.

Graham v Connor says the perspective from a reasonable officer so the state of mind of the officer(s) that were actually there does not fall under that case law, it would be something on its own. The officer's state of mind is often examined and scrutinized and if the defense can find evidence that suggests the officer's state of mind was questionable then they will try to use that in court and they will also heavily scrutinize the officer's past to try and see if they can find any history of questionable states of mind. Like I said though, that is something completely separate from Graham v Connor which solely looks at what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation to help determine whether or not what the officer did was justified or not

Well then the case is almost useless, because reasonable is completely objective. If an officer deems his safety more important than the life of an unarmed suspect, he may shoot him ten times in the chest for violently resisting arrest. In that case, it throws all use of force policies out the window and inserts basic human judgement, which is often self-preserving. An officer that doesn't have to shoot but chooses to because it is safer for him can be defined as reasonable. You may think that would be reasonable, but does that make the shooting justified? See the issue?

I'm not saying that people in New Jersey should care about every police shooting across the nation. What I am saying is the media needs to put some contrast to what they are reporting because most people do not do a lot of research into these topics, they just take what the media feeds them. So if we want people to have a balanced view on an issue then there needs to be a complete picture painted. I don't expect the media to cover every police shooting but when they do cover police shootings and want to try and spin the "police are out of control" story they need to show the entire picture. They need to show how many police shootings are there total, how many are cleared as justifiable, etc. I think people would then realize that these controversial shootings are a very small percentage of the total number of shootings.

 The problem is that people don't trust the system, and they may have a reason not to. The Zimmerman case and the Wilson case both had mass public outrage, and in the court of public opinion, justice wasn't found. Remember when we all watched the Rodney King video, and the officers were cleared of wrong-doing? (See: LA Riots). So telling consumers of media that "X amount of shootings are justified" will do nothing to contrast, because we are starting to question the qualifications for a justified shooting. And yes, maybe unjustified police shootings are a low percentage, but again, the court of public opinion has to have a voice in what qualifies as a justified shooting, because we're all potential victims. You or I could be pulled over and gun down in our cars because the officer mistook reaching for the license and registration as reaching for a gun, and a court may find that justified. Right now,  we don't need "contrast" on national news, because we're still figuring out what the colors are.

In 2012 the BLS said there was an estimated total of 780,000 law enforcement officers employed in the US. With that many officers employed you are going to hear about it regularly but that is very different from it happening regularly. Again I point back to my issue with the media coverage. Just because we hear about it all the time doesn't mean that all police officers are running around shooting people like crazy 24/7. So yes, we hear about it on a regular basis but when compared to the total number of use of force cases out there the percentage of controversial uses of force is pretty small. So that brings the question as to whether or not this is a nation-wide, systemic issue with US law enforcement or something that is an issue with the individual officer or individual departments? I think it is more important to look at it on a case by case basis because you might have some agencies such as Ferguson PD that do have systemic problems in the department like the DOJ identified in their report. Then you might have an officer on the other side of the country who does something wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with the department or training he received it is just that he is a bad person and shouldn't be a cop

 A year ago, Ferguson was a town probably none of us had ever heard of. We could have lived our whole lives never having heard of Ferguson, Missouri. But every day, people in that town were living a different reality, where they feared being pulled over for reasons other than a ticket. They were exploited and hated by the people that swore to protect them. How many other "Fergusons" exist in the country? Since we had never heard of Ferguson until the Michael Brown case, it is logical to conclude that there are more towns like Ferguson. I don't know how many, but I'm sure there's more. Also, we wouldn't have the DOJ report had it not been for the protesting, the mass outrage, and the 24/7 coverage. It would've probably just been another justified shooting on the books. And those departments are not the extent of the problem. Racism is deeply internal bias. If a police officer is racist, openly or subconsciously, it very well could affect everything he does on the job. Who he pulls over, how he treats people, and how quick he may be to go to lethal force are all things that could be affected by this hypothetical officer's internal bias. Racist cops exist. Certainly not all or most, but definitely some. If someone has that bias, I don't see how they can be an effective police officer. I would absolutely be in favor of the DOJ weeding through every department across the country.

The difference was when I was asking you about your training and experience I was actually wanting an answer. You, on the other hand, questioned my experience then said you have no interest in knowing what my experience is which is fine, I really don't care if people are interested in my experience but I will use it if it is relevant to what I am talking about.

I was making a point. Real life experience means nothing on an anonymous internet forum. Apparently it meant so to you, since you repeatedly shut down my points because I am not an LEO.

I don't recall you ever asking me if I thought the Gardena officers should be cops (and scrolling back through the comments on that thread confirms this), but if you want my opinion I think that despite the fact I wouldn't have done the same thing that officer should still be a police officer. I would say the biggest thing that went wrong was the victim constantly moving and putting his right hand down by his waistband out of sight from the officers. Things that could have been done differently? Maybe the officers could have positioned themselves a little better to have better over watch of all the individuals. To be honest, other than shooting the guy I would have done pretty much everything the same way if I were in their shoes. They conducted a felony stop of multiple individuals suspected to have just committed a robbery. He was a robbery suspect reaching towards his waist band, what else would a reasonable officer think? Why wait for the suspect to get a shot off before returning fire? This is where Graham v Connor comes into play.

 I didn't ask you. I stated my opinion and you mocked me for not having law enforcement experience....from which I concluded you disagreed with what I had to say. Was I wrong to make that assumption?

So if the officers could have positioned themselves better, why not include that in the training? Or if its already in the training, why not emphasize? Or why not train to not shoot if you can't see what the suspect is doing? I've already voiced my dissatisfaction with Graham v Connor, because shooting someone that is taking off their hat does not seem reasonable.

Edited July 23, 201510 yr by Riley24

Well, I'm not aware of everything the FBI does, especially considering how fantasized this agency is within popular culture with all the books and movies and TV shows (X-Files!). What makes me think that a federal agent would be better in such situation is that they would, technically, have easier access to performing tools as well as the most relevant evidences for the case they are investigating, on top of their training that is most likely much more complex than the random officer in the street received at the academy. I'm not saying that all of them are white knights, just like not all cops are bad guys. But if the investigators were chosen for their perfect carreer (as in, never been involved in any litigious case or shooting, awarded in the line of duty and so on), I'm pretty sure they would seek for truth and justice, and would not hesitate to arrest a cop. At least more than a local agency investigator that could, let's say, close the case a bit more easily to help a fellow officer. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is happening all the time, and I don't believe all cops are bad guys. Hell, my own dad is a cop in the motorcycle police department. But not everything is all black or all white. Not all cops are good either.

Yep and that is one thing I have an issue with when it comes to people's expectation of law enforcement. Most people only know what they see in the movies and on TV shows which is nothing like what actual law enforcement is like. And yes you are right, federal agencies typically have more resources and more extensive training than a local officer does but that doesn't make them exempt from the other factors I listed. Also it isn't like a local or state agency is just going to pull a random patrol officer off the street to investigate an officer involved shooting, they have trained detectives who do that and have lots of training and experience. I'm still confused as to where the idea that local or state officers are more likely to just brush the case under the rug and I also think that is incredibly unfair to those officers to just automatically assume that they would.

 

It's part of police culture. Either you're unwilling to see it or you're just not going to. It doesn't meant that cops literally cover up wrong-doing, but of course they will take the word of the officer over the word of the victim. That's the problem, when the police police themselves, they lose a certain amount of objectivity.

Well then the case is almost useless, because reasonable is completely objective. If an officer deems his safety more important than the life of an unarmed suspect, he may shoot him ten times in the chest for violently resisting arrest. In that case, it throws all use of force policies out the window and inserts basic human judgement, which is often self-preserving. An officer that doesn't have to shoot but chooses to because it is safer for him can be defined as reasonable. You may think that would be reasonable, but does that make the shooting justified? See the issue?

 The problem is that people don't trust the system, and they may have a reason not to. The Zimmerman case and the Wilson case both had mass public outrage, and in the court of public opinion, justice wasn't found. Remember when we all watched the Rodney King video, and the officers were cleared of wrong-doing? (See: LA Riots). So telling consumers of media that "X amount of shootings are justified" will do nothing to contrast, because we are starting to question the qualifications for a justified shooting. And yes, maybe unjustified police shootings are a low percentage, but again, the court of public opinion has to have a voice in what qualifies as a justified shooting, because we're all potential victims. You or I could be pulled over and gun down in our cars because the officer mistook reaching for the license and registration as reaching for a gun, and a court may find that justified. Right now,  we don't need "contrast" on national news, because we're still figuring out what the colors are.

 A year ago, Ferguson was a town probably none of us had ever heard of. We could have lived our whole lives never having heard of Ferguson, Missouri. But every day, people in that town were living a different reality, where they feared being pulled over for reasons other than a ticket. They were exploited and hated by the people that swore to protect them. How many other "Fergusons" exist in the country? Since we had never heard of Ferguson until the Michael Brown case, it is logical to conclude that there are more towns like Ferguson. I don't know how many, but I'm sure there's more. Also, we wouldn't have the DOJ report had it not been for the protesting, the mass outrage, and the 24/7 coverage. It would've probably just been another justified shooting on the books. And those departments are not the extent of the problem. Racism is deeply internal bias. If a police officer is racist, openly or subconsciously, it very well could affect everything he does on the job. Who he pulls over, how he treats people, and how quick he may be to go to lethal force are all things that could be affected by this hypothetical officer's internal bias. Racist cops exist. Certainly not all or most, but definitely some. If someone has that bias, I don't see how they can be an effective police officer. I would absolutely be in favor of the DOJ weeding through every department across the country.

I was making a point. Real life experience means nothing on an anonymous internet forum. Apparently it meant so to you, since you repeatedly shut down my points because I am not an LEO.

 I didn't ask you. I stated my opinion and you mocked me for not having law enforcement experience....from which I concluded you disagreed with what I had to say. Was I wrong to make that assumption?

So if the officers could have positioned themselves better, why not include that in the training? Or if its already in the training, why not emphasize? Or why not train to not shoot if you can't see what the suspect is doing? I've already voiced my dissatisfaction with Graham v Connor, because shooting someone that is taking off their hat does not seem reasonable.

No, you said it is a common trend so if it is such a common and well known trend then there must be something out there that gives people this idea. Where is this common knowledge coming from? Where can I look at it? I am having an open mind to this and I legitimately want to know.

 

And you are right, there is a certain amount of objectiveness that goes into what is considered reasonable. That is why in court professional instructors will often be called in as witnesses to explain to the court how officers are trained and sometimes give their opinion on what they (the instructor) would have done. And on the contrary, it actually brings things like use of force policies and other policies and laws into question because those help shape what officers are supposed to do.

 

Ok and why should we bow down to the court of public opinion? I couldn't give two shits what the court of public opinion thinks because the majority of people in the US have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the law. For as much as people like to go on about their rights and the law they really have no idea what they are talking about. You would not believe some of the crazy shit people think and how incredibly wrong they are; some of it is right here in this forum. So until we start having a better legal education for the general public the court of public opinion means almost nothing to me and the only reason I even give it any acknowledgement is because I care about educating people and trying to stop the mass amounts of misinformation being put out.

 

So because we have a few bad departments or a few bad cops out there we should investigate every single agency across the country? Just put every officer on trial even if they haven't had any history of misconduct? Not to mention that we cannot even fathom the amount of time, money, and manpower that would take. Also look at what I said to Hystery, what makes a federal agency so much holier than state agencies? Why do you think federal officers are more likely to police up the police? Because don't forget, federal agents are still law enforcement officers too so as you stated earlier you have a problem with "police policing themselves" so what makes a federal officer different? That is still the police policing the police right?

 

How does experience not have anything to do with it? And if that is the case then how come you can say "in most of the cases I've seen", isn't that the same as saying "in my experience"?

 

Positioning is included in the training but not everything goes perfectly when you are out on the street. Should we say "well you didn't position yourself perfectly according to the textbook so you are now guilty of murder"? And that is fine if you don't agree with the case law but that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. I don't always agree with the law either but my personal opinion has no bearing when it comes to what actions I must take or enforcing the law. Police officers are not paid to enforce the laws based on their personal beliefs and opinions, they are paid to enforce the laws that are written by the elected and appointed officials of our government.

No, you said it is a common trend so if it is such a common and well known trend then there must be something out there that gives people this idea. Where is this common knowledge coming from? Where can I look at it? I am having an open mind to this and I legitimately want to know.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/12/walter-scott-shooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

Listen to the recording. The cops laughed about the adrenaline rush and he was sent home, the opposite of what happens when anyone else shoots someone. With my apparently brief knowledge of law enforcement, even I know that you're supposed to bring someone in as soon as possible so they don't have time to change their story. Obviously this is a high profile case, but if you should get anything from this, you should get that the criminal justice system does not treat everyone equally. A police officer will get the benefit of the doubt during an investigation, that's just a byproduct of being a police officer investigated by another police officer. If a police officer tells investigators that he thought the suspect was reaching for his gun, it no longer matters if he actually was reaching for it. That's the most common example, and I've seen it countless times over the years in low-profile cases. It's not a "cover-up", its the automatic benefit of the doubt that prevents LEOs from being investigated equally.

And you are right, there is a certain amount of objectiveness that goes into what is considered reasonable. That is why in court professional instructors will often be called in as witnesses to explain to the court how officers are trained and sometimes give their opinion on what they (the instructor) would have done. And on the contrary, it actually brings things like use of force policies and other policies and laws into question because those help shape what officers are supposed to do.

It still seems to objective to be used. But everything is on the table, current police training should be scrutinized. I have the same amount of confidence in a professional instructor than I have in the officer in question. 

Ok and why should we bow down to the court of public opinion? I couldn't give two shits what the court of public opinion thinks because the majority of people in the US have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the law. For as much as people like to go on about their rights and the law they really have no idea what they are talking about. You would not believe some of the crazy shit people think and how incredibly wrong they are; some of it is right here in this forum. So until we start having a better legal education for the general public the court of public opinion means almost nothing to me and the only reason I even give it any acknowledgement is because I care about educating people and trying to stop the mass amounts of misinformation being put out.

You realize you and I are the court of public opinion, right?

I would be all for public legal education (Maybe under Bernie Sanders lol). But seriously, it does matter. People need to know what the laws are, but so do the police. But just because something is "technically legal" does not make it morally justifiable or right, and communities have always have a right to demand their government to be better. If people can't question their government for killing people, then there's no point in freedom of speech. 

So because we have a few bad departments or a few bad cops out there we should investigate every single agency across the country? Just put every officer on trial even if they haven't had any history of misconduct? Not to mention that we cannot even fathom the amount of time, money, and manpower that would take. Also look at what I said to Hystery, what makes a federal agency so much holier than state agencies? Why do you think federal officers are more likely to police up the police? Because don't forget, federal agents are still law enforcement officers too so as you stated earlier you have a problem with "police policing themselves" so what makes a federal officer different? That is still the police policing the police right

Well, I would hope that the localized and heavily armed government agencies that can kill people are being regularly checked on by a federal agency. Federal investigation isn't perfect, but its the most effective at least in higher profile cases. And no, that doesn't mean putting every officer on trial. But if a department has significant racial disparities, the federal government should know. If officers are sending racist emails like in Ferguson, the federal government should know. And right now, local police departments aren't required to send shooting information to the FBI, so the federal government doesn't even know how many people are being killed.

How does experience not have anything to do with it? And if that is the case then how come you can say "in most of the cases I've seen", isn't that the same as saying "in my experience"

Reading the news is not the same thing as claiming you're someone that you're not, which is a very common occurrence on the internet. 

Positioning is included in the training but not everything goes perfectly when you are out on the street. Should we say "well you didn't position yourself perfectly according to the textbook so you are now guilty of murder"? And that is fine if you don't agree with the case law but that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. I don't always agree with the law either but my personal opinion has no bearing when it comes to what actions I must take or enforcing the law. Police officers are not paid to enforce the laws based on their personal beliefs and opinions, they are paid to enforce the laws that are written by the elected and appointed officials of our government.

What ever happened to the "clear and present danger"? I'm honestly asking, when did "clear and present danger" become "well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case"? That's exactly what happened in the Gardena case, lets call it what it is. They didn't know if he was a threat, but they killed him just in case. Oops, turned out they gunned down an innocent and unarmed person who called the police for help.

Edited July 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/12/walter-scott-shooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

Listen to the recording. The cops laughed about the adrenaline rush and he was sent home, the opposite of what happens when anyone else shoots someone. With my apparently brief knowledge of law enforcement, even I know that you're supposed to bring someone in as soon as possible so they don't have time to change their story. Obviously this is a high profile case, but if you should get anything from this, you should get that the criminal justice system does not treat everyone equally. A police officer will get the benefit of the doubt during an investigation, that's just a byproduct of being a police officer investigated by another police officer. If a police officer tells investigators that he thought the suspect was reaching for his gun, it no longer matters if he actually was reaching for it. That's the most common example, and I've seen it countless times over the years in low-profile cases. It's not a "cover-up", its the automatic benefit of the doubt that prevents LEOs from being investigated equally.

It still seems to objective to be used. But everything is on the table, current police training should be scrutinized. I have the same amount of confidence in a professional instructor than I have in the officer in question. 

You realize you and I are the court of public opinion, right?

I would be all for public legal education (Maybe under Bernie Sanders lol). But seriously, it does matter. People need to know what the laws are, but so do the police. But just because something is "technically legal" does not make it morally justifiable or right, and communities have always have a right to demand their government to be better. If people can't question their government for killing people, then there's no point in freedom of speech. 

Well, I would hope that the localized and heavily armed government agencies that can kill people are being regularly checked on by a federal agency. Federal investigation isn't perfect, but its the most effective at least in higher profile cases. And no, that doesn't mean putting every officer on trial. But if a department has significant racial disparities, the federal government should know. If officers are sending racist emails like in Ferguson, the federal government should know. And right now, local police departments aren't required to send shooting information to the FBI, so the federal government doesn't even know how many people are being killed.

Reading the news is not the same thing as claiming you're someone that you're not, which is a very common occurrence on the internet. 

What ever happened to the "clear and present danger"? I'm honestly asking, when did "clear and present danger" become "well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case"? That's exactly what happened in the Gardena case, lets call it what it is. They didn't know if he was a threat, but they killed him just in case. Oops, turned out they gunned down an innocent and unarmed person who called the police for help.

To me it didn't really sound like he was laughing about the situation. Laughing can mean different things, sometimes people laugh when they are nervous. Regardless of that audio footage I think that case is fucked up and that officer will be convicted of murder, or at least I hope so. But you are right, police officers are not treated the same as other citizens who shoot people. There is a reason for that and I somewhat agree with it. Law enforcement is the only profession where people are trying to kill you and you might have to make a decision on whether or not to take someone's life. Officer's take an oath to swear they will perform their jobs to the best of their ability. So police officers are not the same as other citizens therefore they are not treated the same as a regular citizen. How is an officer supposed to do his job and make these decisions (that are usually have to be made within seconds) if he is constantly worried that he will immediately be thrown in cuffs and booked into the county jail even if he was justified and just performing his duties as a police officer. I don't think the fact that they are treated differently immediately after the shooting has any effect on how well of an investigation is performed. If an officer gives his account of what happened and says he thought the suspect was reaching for a gun the detective will still investigate that to see if it is true, they don't just take the officer's word, they still collect forensic evidence and witness testimony. I can already tell that you aren't going to share that opinion and no matter what you will think that all cops are just trying to help out a fellow officer.

 

So you basically have no confidence in any police officer across the nation? If you don't have any confidence in a professional instructor who has been doing the job for years and is pretty much considered an expert in the field then how can you have confidence in any other officer in the US? You think that every officer in the nation is screwed up?

 

Yes, I understand that when I talk about my personal opinion that I am part of the court of public opinion. However, most of the time when I am talking about something on here I am talking about it from a legal stand point and based on what the law says (I'm sure you can tell based on all the case law I have been referencing lately). In the Gardena case for example, I wasn't defending those officers actions based on my personal opinion, I was defending them based on what the law says and I would do the same for anyone else whether they are a law enforcement officer or not. I didn't really talk about my personal opinion in that case until you explicitly asked for it in which case I usually preface everything with "in my personal opinion". I did the same thing with the Zimmerman case. Legally he was justified in what he did however in my personal opinion I think he is a racist piece of shit and he had no business harassing Trayvon Martin. However, as I have stated before my personal opinion has no place when it comes to enforcing the law. He had a legal right to do what he did and I will protect his rights just like I would for anyone else.

 

You want agencies that are heavily armed to be check regularly by federal agencies? Do you know who some of the most heavily armed law enforcement agencies out there are? Federal agencies! The DEA, ICE, US Marshals, FBI, US Secret Service all have more military style gear and are more heavily armed than any state or local department in the US. Who is going to investigate those guys? Do we build more federal law enforcement agencies on top of those agencies? But who would investigate the investigators to make sure they are not corrupt?

 

Are you implying that I am lying about my background? I can assure you that I have all the paperwork and certifications that prove I am who I say I am, not that I think you care either way.

 

The only time I have ever heard "clear and present danger" is when talking about the 1994 film starring Harrison Ford. Some quick research I did (because I know I don't have knowledge on everything) reveals that the only time "clear and present danger" was ever used in court was in the early 1900s when the US Supreme Court was trying to determine when the government can place limits on free speech. So clear and present danger has nothing to do with law enforcement. The law says there must be an imminent threat which is not the same as a clear and present danger, imminent just means "immediately about to happen". If you believe that a suspect is reaching for a gun that is an imminent threat. Now using the case law that I know you hate, an officer could reasonably believe that a person who is suspected of robbery and is reaching for their waist band despite being told multiple times not to while having 3-4 officers pointing guns at them is reaching for a gun.

To me it didn't really sound like he was laughing about the situation. Laughing can mean different things, sometimes people laugh when they are nervous. Regardless of that audio footage I think that case is fucked up and that officer will be convicted of murder, or at least I hope so. But you are right, police officers are not treated the same as other citizens who shoot people. There is a reason for that and I somewhat agree with it. Law enforcement is the only profession where people are trying to kill you and you might have to make a decision on whether or not to take someone's life. Officer's take an oath to swear they will perform their jobs to the best of their ability. So police officers are not the same as other citizens therefore they are not treated the same as a regular citizen. How is an officer supposed to do his job and make these decisions (that are usually have to be made within seconds) if he is constantly worried that he will immediately be thrown in cuffs and booked into the county jail even if he was justified and just performing his duties as a police officer. I don't think the fact that they are treated differently immediately after the shooting has any effect on how well of an investigation is performed. If an officer gives his account of what happened and says he thought the suspect was reaching for a gun the detective will still investigate that to see if it is true, they don't just take the officer's word, they still collect forensic evidence and witness testimony. I can already tell that you aren't going to share that opinion and no matter what you will think that all cops are just trying to help out a fellow officer.

Shouldn't that mean that they are held to a higher standard? Using taxpayer dollars, we give them guns and send them out onto the streets. I'm not saying that they should be treated as criminals as soon as they shoot someone, but obviously an officer's testimony is treated differently than a normal person's testimony, even if there is no scientific evidence to prove his account. Obviously they collect that information, but can honestly tell me that you have ever questioned an officer's testimony apart from a case as obvious as the Michael slager case? Have you ever seen a case that was ruled justified and thought "Huh, that's not right.". Have you ever seen a case where an officer said a suspect reached for his gun, and doubted it? If you don't, what makes you think (not all) but some investigators generally would?

So you basically have no confidence in any police officer across the nation? If you don't have any confidence in a professional instructor who has been doing the job for years and is pretty much considered an expert in the field then how can you have confidence in any other officer in the US? You think that every officer in the nation is screwed up

No, I don't. For someone who constantly claims others put words in your mouth, you're doing just that. Yes, policies and systemic problems (however large or small) exist nation-wide. If a systemic problem were to exist, it would exist in the psychology of nearly police officer, and in the training as well. If police are trained to not take risk, they would be more likely to shoot quicker. I don't think every cop is screwed up, but there's clearly a problem, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have always said, and will continue to say that the problem is a cultural one, and that affects the way police officers are trained. Obviously there's not an epidemic of killers becoming cops. But as I'm sure you would attest to, training plays a huge part in the ways that police officers handle a situation. Training is the difference between an average person and a police officer. So if we're seeing this many problems with police officers, it would be logical to conclude that the training may be to blame. The part of the topic that you seem to be missing is the fundamental difference between a systemic problem and the claim that all cops are bad.

 

Yes, I understand that when I talk about my personal opinion that I am part of the court of public opinion. However, most of the time when I am talking about something on here I am talking about it from a legal stand point and based on what the law says (I'm sure you can tell based on all the case law I have been referencing lately). In the Gardena case for example, I wasn't defending those officers actions based on my personal opinion, I was defending them based on what the law says and I would do the same for anyone else whether they are a law enforcement officer or not. I didn't really talk about my personal opinion in that case until you explicitly asked for it in which case I usually preface everything with "in my personal opinion". I did the same thing with the Zimmerman case. Legally he was justified in what he did however in my personal opinion I think he is a racist piece of shit and he had no business harassing Trayvon Martin. However, as I have stated before my personal opinion has no place when it comes to enforcing the law. He had a legal right to do what he did and I will protect his rights just like I would for anyone else

Interesting that you use the one case where it was not actually a police officer. Would you call a police officer a racist piece of shit if he did the same exact thing? I don't want to get into the Zimmerman case, because that's a dead horse. But I just found that interesting.

If you want to stop defending people who's actions you despise, you can oppose the law that protects them. Defending someone's actions because they're technically legal is not compatible with hating what they do. It's not being objective, its being part of the problem. Part of challenging wrong-doing is having the courage to challenge the law that may very-well protect people that do wrong.

You want agencies that are heavily armed to be check regularly by federal agencies? Do you know who some of the most heavily armed law enforcement agencies out there are? Federal agencies! The DEA, ICE, US Marshals, FBI, US Secret Service all have more military style gear and are more heavily armed than any state or local department in the US. Who is going to investigate those guys? Do we build more federal law enforcement agencies on top of those agencies? But who would investigate the investigators to make sure they are not corrupt

Federal agencies aren't the ones causing the problems we're talking about. Shocking that you're suddenly so interested in government accountability in this hypothetical.

If FBI agents went into neighborhoods and shot people this often, I would want more oversight over them as well. In the same way that I want oversight over the NSA after their unconstitutional programs were exposed. Accountability is not a slippery slope, its a cornerstone in any democracy.

Are you implying that I am lying about my background? I can assure you that I have all the paperwork and certifications that prove I am who I say I am, not that I think you care either way.

What part of "anonymous" do you not understand? I have no idea who you are. It doesn't matter what certifications you have, because there is no way of verifying that you're telling the truth, or that the documents you provide are actually yours. Welcome to the internet.

The only time I have ever heard "clear and present danger" is when talking about the 1994 film starring Harrison Ford. Some quick research I did (because I know I don't have knowledge on everything) reveals that the only time "clear and present danger" was ever used in court was in the early 1900s when the US Supreme Court was trying to determine when the government can place limits on free speech. So clear and present danger has nothing to do with law enforcement. The law says there must be an imminent threat which is not the same as a clear and present danger, imminent just means "immediately about to happen". If you believe that a suspect is reaching for a gun that is an imminent threat. Now using the case law that I know you hate, an officer could reasonably believe that a person who is suspected of robbery and is reaching for their waist band despite being told multiple times not to while having 3-4 officers pointing guns at them is reaching for a gun.

 So you think that "well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case" is an acceptable standard for killing a human being? So my (and your) life hinges on whether or not a police officer thinks I'm dangerous?

 

Shouldn't that mean that they are held to a higher standard? Using taxpayer dollars, we give them guns and send them out onto the streets. I'm not saying that they should be treated as criminals as soon as they shoot someone, but obviously an officer's testimony is treated differently than a normal person's testimony, even if there is no scientific evidence to prove his account. Obviously they collect that information, but can honestly tell me that you have ever questioned an officer's testimony apart from a case as obvious as the Michael slager case? Have you ever seen a case that was ruled justified and thought "Huh, that's not right.". Have you ever seen a case where an officer said a suspect reached for his gun, and doubted it? If you don't, what makes you think (not all) but some investigators generally would?

No, I don't. For someone who constantly claims others put words in your mouth, you're doing just that. Yes, policies and systemic problems (however large or small) exist nation-wide. If a systemic problem were to exist, it would exist in the psychology of nearly police officer, and in the training as well. If police are trained to not take risk, they would be more likely to shoot quicker. I don't think every cop is screwed up, but there's clearly a problem, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have always said, and will continue to say that the problem is a cultural one, and that affects the way police officers are trained. Obviously there's not an epidemic of killers becoming cops. But as I'm sure you would attest to, training plays a huge part in the ways that police officers handle a situation. Training is the difference between an average person and a police officer. So if we're seeing this many problems with police officers, it would be logical to conclude that the training may be to blame. The part of the topic that you seem to be missing is the fundamental difference between a systemic problem and the claim that all cops are bad.

 

Interesting that you use the one case where it was not actually a police officer. Would you call a police officer a racist piece of shit if he did the same exact thing? I don't want to get into the Zimmerman case, because that's a dead horse. But I just found that interesting.

If you want to stop defending people who's actions you despise, you can oppose the law that protects them. Defending someone's actions because they're technically legal is not compatible with hating what they do. It's not being objective, its being part of the problem. Part of challenging wrong-doing is having the courage to challenge the law that may very-well protect people that do wrong.

Federal agencies aren't the ones causing the problems we're talking about. Shocking that you're suddenly so interested in government accountability in this hypothetical.

If FBI agents went into neighborhoods and shot people this often, I would want more oversight over them as well. In the same way that I want oversight over the NSA after their unconstitutional programs were exposed. Accountability is not a slippery slope, its a cornerstone in any democracy.

What part of "anonymous" do you not understand? I have no idea who you are. It doesn't matter what certifications you have, because there is no way of verifying that you're telling the truth, or that the documents you provide are actually yours. Welcome to the internet.

 So you think that "well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case" is an acceptable standard for killing a human being? So my (and your) life hinges on whether or not a police officer thinks I'm dangerous?

Off the top of my head? No I can't think of any cases that were ruled justified that didn't seem right to me. Have I ever doubted what an officer has said? Yes and even if I don't doubt what they said I still look for evidence to support that statement because if you want to take anything to court you have to have evidence to back it up. If I can't find evidence then I don't necessarily think they were lying, I just can't prove what they said is true.

 

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you said you have as much confidence in the professional instructors as you do the officers involved in these shootings. If you don't have any confidence in the people who are training police officers then that means you don't have any confidence in any police officer. What makes you think police officers are trained not to take risks? If that were true they would never do traffic stops, they would never clear buildings, they would just sit at the police station their entire shift. They are trained not to take unnecessary risk such as clearing a building by themselves if they have time to wait for backup.

 

I used a case that didn't involve a police officer to show I don't have a bias towards police officers and that I feel the same way whether they are a police officer or a regular citizen. I don't care if you are a regular civilian or a police officer a racist piece of shit is a racist piece of shit, I couldn't care less what their profession is.

 

I don't oppose the laws. I think for the most part the laws are good and I agree with them. Unfortunately there is no law for being an asshole or stupid. Using the Zimmerman case as an example again, sure I think Zimmerman was a racist asshole but there is no law that says you can't be a racist asshole. And I don't think these laws are "technicalities" these are basic rights. Zimmerman had a right to be a racist asshole, that is part of his first amendment right; he also had a right to defend himself.

 

I'm only bringing up the issue of accountability because that seems to be your only reason for wanting to expand on this whole federal agency thing. You are the one that has an issue with police police the police and I'm am trying to show you that your solution is the exact same, federal agents are still law enforcement officers just like any other officer. And you don't think federal agents don't go around "causing problems". Have you seen videos of DEA or US Marshals serving a warrant? They bring out all their military equipment just like local agencies do. Why is it not "causing problems" when they do it but it is if a local agency does?

 

That is fine, I don't care if you doubt what I say my qualifications are but to imply that I am lying is kind of insulting to me.

 

That isn't what I said. I said an imminent threat, I even explained what imminent meant. An imminent threat is about to happen, not happen "at some point". And I see you decided to ignore all the other factors. You looked solely at the imminent threat part but ignored the "he's a robbery suspect", "he isn't listening to commands even while having 3-4 guns pointed at him", and "he is reaching towards his waist band". It isn't one single factor that justifies a shooting, it is a combination of several so don't try and oversimplify it and twist what I said.

Off the top of my head? No I can't think of any cases that were ruled justified that didn't seem right to me. Have I ever doubted what an officer has said? Yes and even if I don't doubt what they said I still look for evidence to support that statement because if you want to take anything to court you have to have evidence to back it up. If I can't find evidence then I don't necessarily think they were lying, I just can't prove what they said is true.

Thats the benefit of being the only one left alive in an encounter - you can tell any story you like. Don't you think its possible that officers over-exaggerate a threat in a testimony? Out of how many "reaching for my gun" stories, was the suspect actually reaching for his gun? You take the officer's word for it, unless there's overwhelming evidence not to. I doubt you would think an officer is guilty if witness testimonies

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, you said you have as much confidence in the professional instructors as you do the officers involved in these shootings. If you don't have any confidence in the people who are training police officers then that means you don't have any confidence in any police officer. What makes you think police officers are trained not to take risks? If that were true they would never do traffic stops, they would never clear buildings, they would just sit at the police station their entire shift. They are trained not to take unnecessary risk such as clearing a building by themselves if they have time to wait for backup.

The definition of putting words in someone's mouth is saying that they said something that they didn't. If a problem exists, its systemic, which would mean that instructors could be partly responsible for creating the violent culture that exists. I'll use the Gardena case as an example. The officers gunned someone down because they saw his hands move in a way that could possibly indicate reaching for a gun. It turned out, he was completely innocent and unarmed, and was the one who called the police. Shoot first, ask questions later. They are trained to always put their safety ahead of who they're serving. There is a middleground between officer safety and suspect safety, and all of this cases show that we haven't found it yet.

I used a case that didn't involve a police officer to show I don't have a bias towards police officers and that I feel the same way whether they are a police officer or a regular citizen. I don't care if you are a regular civilian or a police officer a racist piece of shit is a racist piece of shit, I couldn't care less what their profession is.

 Ok, so lets say Zimmerman was an actual police officer. What in your mind makes him a racist piece of shit?

I don't oppose the laws. I think for the most part the laws are good and I agree with them. Unfortunately there is no law for being an asshole or stupid. Using the Zimmerman case as an example again, sure I think Zimmerman was a racist asshole but there is no law that says you can't be a racist asshole. And I don't think these laws are "technicalities" these are basic rights. Zimmerman had a right to be a racist asshole, that is part of his first amendment right; he also had a right to defend himself.

As much as I would love to get into Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine, I'll refrain. Another topic for another day.

I'm only bringing up the issue of accountability because that seems to be your only reason for wanting to expand on this whole federal agency thing. You are the one that has an issue with police police the police and I'm am trying to show you that your solution is the exact same, federal agents are still law enforcement officers just like any other officer. And you don't think federal agents don't go around "causing problems". Have you seen videos of DEA or US Marshals serving a warrant? They bring out all their military equipment just like local agencies do. Why is it not "causing problems" when they do it but it is if a local agency does?

 DEA and US Marshals by nature have higher-profile cases. The US Marshals almost exclusively track down and transport the countries more dangerous criminals, and the DEA are have a wider net of responsibility than local departments. In terms of military equipment...why does a town with 1,000 residents need an IED resistant vehicle? I 100% understand why federal agencies have that need. Also, if I'm not mistaken, federal agencies have oversight committees. Whether or not they're effective is questionable. When it comes to cracking down on local law enforcement misconduct, federal agencies have proven to be the most effective. We can play with hypotheticals and slippy slopes all we want, but that's the reality.

That is fine, I don't care if you doubt what I say my qualifications are but to imply that I am lying is kind of insulting to me.

Well I'm sorry if it offends you, but you haven't shared your qualifications and there's no reason for you to. I can easily make up person stories about how I was abused by police officers, which is why it is best to leave personal experience out of an anonymous internet conversation. I'm not implying that you're lying, its just that lying is easy on the internet.

That isn't what I said. I said an imminent threat, I even explained what imminent meant. An imminent threat is about to happen, not happen "at some point". And I see you decided to ignore all the other factors. You looked solely at the imminent threat part but ignored the "he's a robbery suspect", "he isn't listening to commands even while having 3-4 guns pointed at him", and "he is reaching towards his waist band". It isn't one single factor that justifies a shooting, it is a combination of several so don't try and oversimplify it and twist what I said.

Yes, it is "at some point". They didn't see a gun, they didn't even think they saw a gun. They saw someone move their hands in the general area where somone might keep a gun, if they had one, which they didn't have any reason to think he did. If he had reached quickly into a jacket or something of the sort, that would be a different story. It is "at some point" because the suspects slow and vague movements somewhat resembled that of reaching for a weapon. So he wasn't an imminent threat. Also, a taser isn't completely effective against an armed suspect, but would I be wrong in thinking that it would be effective on someone who has nothing in either hand? 

So I'll add that to the rationale."Well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be someone that stole a bicycle in this area, and you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case". Is that a justified shooting?

Turned out he wasn't a robbery suspect, but they didn't let him live long enough for him to explain that. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they weren't looking for an armed suspect, they were looking for a bicycle thief. Watch the video again. He made no sudden movements, he just took off his hat. You never know how you're going to react when you have 4 guns pointed at you. You may think to take off your hat to show respect or show that you're not hiding anything. Maybe that's not the perfect way to react, but it shouldn't be the last thing you ever do on planet Earth.

 

Thats the benefit of being the only one left alive in an encounter - you can tell any story you like. Don't you think its possible that officers over-exaggerate a threat in a testimony? Out of how many "reaching for my gun" stories, was the suspect actually reaching for his gun? You take the officer's word for it, unless there's overwhelming evidence not to. I doubt you would think an officer is guilty if witness testimonies

The definition of putting words in someone's mouth is saying that they said something that they didn't. If a problem exists, its systemic, which would mean that instructors could be partly responsible for creating the violent culture that exists. I'll use the Gardena case as an example. The officers gunned someone down because they saw his hands move in a way that could possibly indicate reaching for a gun. It turned out, he was completely innocent and unarmed, and was the one who called the police. Shoot first, ask questions later. They are trained to always put their safety ahead of who they're serving. There is a middleground between officer safety and suspect safety, and all of this cases show that we haven't found it yet.

 Ok, so lets say Zimmerman was an actual police officer. What in your mind makes him a racist piece of shit?

As much as I would love to get into Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine, I'll refrain. Another topic for another day.

 DEA and US Marshals by nature have higher-profile cases. The US Marshals almost exclusively track down and transport the countries more dangerous criminals, and the DEA are have a wider net of responsibility than local departments. In terms of military equipment...why does a town with 1,000 residents need an IED resistant vehicle? I 100% understand why federal agencies have that need. Also, if I'm not mistaken, federal agencies have oversight committees. Whether or not they're effective is questionable. When it comes to cracking down on local law enforcement misconduct, federal agencies have proven to be the most effective. We can play with hypotheticals and slippy slopes all we want, but that's the reality.

Well I'm sorry if it offends you, but you haven't shared your qualifications and there's no reason for you to. I can easily make up person stories about how I was abused by police officers, which is why it is best to leave personal experience out of an anonymous internet conversation. I'm not implying that you're lying, its just that lying is easy on the internet.

Yes, it is "at some point". They didn't see a gun, they didn't even think they saw a gun. They saw someone move their hands in the general area where somone might keep a gun, if they had one, which they didn't have any reason to think he did. If he had reached quickly into a jacket or something of the sort, that would be a different story. It is "at some point" because the suspects slow and vague movements somewhat resembled that of reaching for a weapon. So he wasn't an imminent threat. Also, a taser isn't completely effective against an armed suspect, but would I be wrong in thinking that it would be effective on someone who has nothing in either hand? 

So I'll add that to the rationale."Well, I can't really tell if you're a threat, you might be someone that stole a bicycle in this area, and you might be a danger at some point so I'm going to kill you just in case". Is that a justified shooting?

Turned out he wasn't a robbery suspect, but they didn't let him live long enough for him to explain that. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they weren't looking for an armed suspect, they were looking for a bicycle thief. Watch the video again. He made no sudden movements, he just took off his hat. You never know how you're going to react when you have 4 guns pointed at you. You may think to take off your hat to show respect or show that you're not hiding anything. Maybe that's not the perfect way to react, but it shouldn't be the last thing you ever do on planet Earth.

It almost every case there was forensic evidence, video evidence, or witness testimony to back up what an office said so if I have evidence that what they said was true then I'm going to believe that the officer's story is true. I know you are trying to make me look like someone who just blindly accepts what someone says just because they wear a badge but that is not true at all so you can cut that shit out.

 

If Zimmerman were a police officer he would still be a racist POS because he was following Mr. Martin for no other reason than he was a black kid with a hoodie. Zimmerman also made some racist comments to the dispatcher when talking to the police on the phone. Then Zimmerman decided to be a dick and confront Mr. Martin and started yelling at him and being an asshole which, unfortunately, is his right under the first amendment.

 

The DEA is one of the most criticized federal law enforcement agencies in the US and many people believe their tactics are too heavy handed (although I'm sure you can tell that I am not one of those people). The oversight comittees you are talking about are run by politicians from the US Senate and House of Representatives which, to me, is even worse. Many politicians don't know shit about law enforcement and they actually have reasons to corrupt the process because they have to keep their supporters happy.

 

The officers at the time didn't know that it was a simple theft because it was originally dispatched as a robbery (which are very very different crimes). It wasn't until later they found out that there was no robbery only a theft. I'm sorry, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. First off, who thinks "oh the police are pointing guns at me and yelling, I should take my hat off"? Second, it wasn't like that was the only movement he had made. He was constantly making movements the entire time and he was told repeatedly to stop, if it was his first movement then maybe I would have understood but he was told multiple times to stop moving and keep his hands up. How many times do officers have to tell you to stop moving and keep your hands up before it gets into your head?

It almost every case there was forensic evidence, video evidence, or witness testimony to back up what an office said so if I have evidence that what they said was true then I'm going to believe that the officer's story is true. I know you are trying to make me look like someone who just blindly accepts what someone says just because they wear a badge but that is not true at all so you can cut that shit out.

But yet you can't point to a single case where you've doubted the officer's version of events. See where I'm coming from? I'm not making you look like anything. And when some of the witnesses disagreed with the officer's account (in the Ferguson case lets say), I'm sure you would dismiss their claims in favor of a witness that did back up the officer's story. I've seen people do that 100 times, am I wrong for lumping you in with that crowd?

If Zimmerman were a police officer he would still be a racist POS because he was following Mr. Martin for no other reason than he was a black kid with a hoodie. Zimmerman also made some racist comments to the dispatcher when talking to the police on the phone. Then Zimmerman decided to be a dick and confront Mr. Martin and started yelling at him and being an asshole which, unfortunately, is his right under the first amendment.

Zimmerman also believed Martin to be a robbery suspect. Again, not making you look like anything, but would you have the same criticisms of Zimmerman if he was a plain-clothed police officer? 

The DEA is one of the most criticized federal law enforcement agencies in the US and many people believe their tactics are too heavy handed (although I'm sure you can tell that I am not one of those people). The oversight comittees you are talking about are run by politicians from the US Senate and House of Representatives which, to me, is even worse. Many politicians don't know shit about law enforcement and they actually have reasons to corrupt the process because they have to keep their supporters happy

Still, I would rather the DEA have armored IED resistant vehicles than my town of 3,800 people. No system of accountability is ever perfect, but there doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, or that the current one is the best way of doing it. That's anti-progress.

The officers at the time didn't know that it was a simple theft because it was originally dispatched as a robbery (which are very very different crimes). It wasn't until later they found out that there was no robbery only a theft. I'm sorry, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. First off, who thinks "oh the police are pointing guns at me and yelling, I should take my hat off"? Second, it wasn't like that was the only movement he had made. He was constantly making movements the entire time and he was told repeatedly to stop, if it was his first movement then maybe I would have understood but he was told multiple times to stop moving and keep his hands up. How many times do officers have to tell you to stop moving and keep your hands up before it gets into your head?

 I know I said its best to leave personal experience out of it, but have you ever had 4 guns pointed at you with bright lights and people yelling things? I'm guessing not, and neither have I. Normal people aren't trained for that situation. There's no telling how someone will react. And maybe if he keeps fidgeting with his hands, tase him. We'd probably still be arguing about that but at least he would still be alive. And if his hands are at his head as he's taking off his hat, maybe take a little bit of a risk and tackle him with the three other officers covering you. I know that being a cop is a tough and dangerous job, but it is not too much to ask for to try other avenues other than shooting. 

Why is it that officers have every right to shoot you for something they think might possibly be happening, but you don't have the right to not get shot for not reacting perfectly to having four guns pointed at you? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 

 

But yet you can't point to a single case where you've doubted the officer's version of events. See where I'm coming from? I'm not making you look like anything. And when some of the witnesses disagreed with the officer's account (in the Ferguson case lets say), I'm sure you would dismiss their claims in favor of a witness that did back up the officer's story. I've seen people do that 100 times, am I wrong for lumping you in with that crowd?

Zimmerman also believed Martin to be a robbery suspect. Again, not making you look like anything, but would you have the same criticisms of Zimmerman if he was a plain-clothed police officer? 

Still, I would rather the DEA have armored IED resistant vehicles than my town of 3,800 people. No system of accountability is ever perfect, but there doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, or that the current one is the best way of doing it. That's anti-progress.

 I know I said its best to leave personal experience out of it, but have you ever had 4 guns pointed at you with bright lights and people yelling things? I'm guessing not, and neither have I. Normal people aren't trained for that situation. There's no telling how someone will react. And maybe if he keeps fidgeting with his hands, tase him. We'd probably still be arguing about that but at least he would still be alive. And if his hands are at his head as he's taking off his hat, maybe take a little bit of a risk and tackle him with the three other officers covering you. I know that being a cop is a tough and dangerous job, but it is not too much to ask for to try other avenues other than shooting. 

Why is it that officers have every right to shoot you for something they think might possibly be happening, but you don't have the right to not get shot for not reacting perfectly to having four guns pointed at you? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 

I said I can't think of a case off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went digging around I could find one that I thought was fishy. And the reason I don't doubt their version of events is because there was evidence or witness testimony backing up what they said. The "witnesses" in the Ferguson case were lying and they were caught lying so yes, I didn't believe them but that was because they didn't back up the officer I didn't believe them because they were caught in a lie. So yes, you are wrong for lumping me in with that crowd, next time pick a case where the so called "witnesses" didn't lie out their ass.

 

Did Zimmerman have any reason to believe he was a robbery suspect? No, he just saw a black kid in a hoodie that he didn't recognize and just assumed he was a robbery suspect. If a police officer did that I would think the same thing. If a police officer stops someone because they think they are a robbery suspect they usually have reasonable suspicion, Zimmerman didn't have RS he was just racist.

 

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Unless there is some substantial claims or suspicion of screwed up things going on I don't see a reason to involve federal agencies in investigating every shooting incident across the country. I am confident in the ability of state law enforcement being able to handle most of that.

 

Most people that I have seen in that situation don't react that way. Most people do exactly what they are told, for whatever reason this guy didn't. Maybe he was scared, maybe he just didn't realize what he was doing, who knows there are lots of possibilities. Tasing him was not an option, they were too far away plus the way his body was turned to the side it is unlikely they would have been able to get both prongs to hit the target. And tackle him? That is the worst thing to do if you are holding 3 robbery suspects at gun point. If one of them pulls a gun there you are now right next to that guy and creating a cross fire situation, so even if you have guys covering you they can't take a shot now because you are in the line of fire.

I know it is the job of police officers to protect every citizen (including suspects) and they don't really want to use deadly force, but it seems like you are asking them to put themselves in unnecessary danger. So if a guy is shooting at me should I still try to use other means than deadly force? I'm not really protecting him if I shoot him right?

I said I can't think of a case off the top of my head, I'm sure if I went digging around I could find one that I thought was fishy. And the reason I don't doubt their version of events is because there was evidence or witness testimony backing up what they said. The "witnesses" in the Ferguson case were lying and they were caught lying so yes, I didn't believe them but that was because they didn't back up the officer I didn't believe them because they were caught in a lie. So yes, you are wrong for lumping me in with that crowd, next time pick a case where the so called "witnesses" didn't lie out their ass.

There were plenty of inconsistencies with all of the witnesses, a quick google search can find a lot of articles outlining them. There were a lot of things wrong in that process and I'm not exactly sure how well the justice system faired under that historic amount of public scrutiny.

Did Zimmerman have any reason to believe he was a robbery suspect? No, he just saw a black kid in a hoodie that he didn't recognize and just assumed he was a robbery suspect. If a police officer did that I would think the same thing. If a police officer stops someone because they think they are a robbery suspect they usually have reasonable suspicion, Zimmerman didn't have RS he was just racist.

So are you willing to acknowledge that there are police officers all across the country that rough up or harass black teenagers because they "fit the profile"? Black communties from LA to NYC have been complaining about similar treatment, that's what made the Zimmerman case so high-profile, its not a grand coincidence. Police officers have admitted to it, and it was practically legalized with Stop and Frisk in NYC. You say they "usually have reasonable suspicion", but what counts as reasonable suspicion now-a-days in America? Not by what police officers are taught, but what they do in reality in those neighborhoods.

Most people that I have seen in that situation don't react that way. Most people do exactly what they are told, for whatever reason this guy didn't. Maybe he was scared, maybe he just didn't realize what he was doing, who knows there are lots of possibilities. Tasing him was not an option, they were too far away plus the way his body was turned to the side it is unlikely they would have been able to get both prongs to hit the target. And tackle him? That is the worst thing to do if you are holding 3 robbery suspects at gun point. If one of them pulls a gun there you are now right next to that guy and creating a cross fire situation, so even if you have guys covering you they can't take a shot now because you are in the line of fire

Are you seriously saying that the only choice these officers had was to gun the person down? I person takes off his hat, and that's the only logical thing left to do? Shoot first, ask questions later. Don't wait until you see a gun, or even something that looks like a gun. If you're scared enough, kill the person. It scares me that you don't see how insane that is. If fidgeting gets you killed in America, what won't?

I know it is the job of police officers to protect every citizen (including suspects) and they don't really want to use deadly force, but it seems like you are asking them to put themselves in unnecessary danger. So if a guy is shooting at me should I still try to use other means than deadly force? I'm not really protecting him if I shoot him right?

How could you possibly have gotten the idea that I'm implying that police shouldn't shoot back when being shot at? None of the suspects we've been talking about have been armed (apart from a common household maintenance tool). None of them have had guns on them or even near them, let alone firing at officers. Everyone can agree that return fire is justified, but I can show you countless cases where that wasn't the case. We're talking about someone who was shot for taking off their hat by three armed officers that were so paranoid about weapons that they couldn't distinguish the difference between taking off a hat or reaching for a gun. My standard for a justified shooting is when a suspect presents an immediate lethal danger to an officer. What's yours? Because apparently ours differ.

 

There were plenty of inconsistencies with all of the witnesses, a quick google search can find a lot of articles outlining them. There were a lot of things wrong in that process and I'm not exactly sure how well the justice system faired under that historic amount of public scrutiny.

So are you willing to acknowledge that there are police officers all across the country that rough up or harass black teenagers because they "fit the profile"? Black communties from LA to NYC have been complaining about similar treatment, that's what made the Zimmerman case so high-profile, its not a grand coincidence. Police officers have admitted to it, and it was practically legalized with Stop and Frisk in NYC. You say they "usually have reasonable suspicion", but what counts as reasonable suspicion now-a-days in America? Not by what police officers are taught, but what they do in reality in those neighborhoods.

Are you seriously saying that the only choice these officers had was to gun the person down? I person takes off his hat, and that's the only logical thing left to do? Shoot first, ask questions later. Don't wait until you see a gun, or even something that looks like a gun. If you're scared enough, kill the person. It scares me that you don't see how insane that is. If fidgeting gets you killed in America, what won't?

How could you possibly have gotten the idea that I'm implying that police shouldn't shoot back when being shot at? None of the suspects we've been talking about have been armed (apart from a common household maintenance tool). None of them have had guns on them or even near them, let alone firing at officers. Everyone can agree that return fire is justified, but I can show you countless cases where that wasn't the case. We're talking about someone who was shot for taking off their hat by three armed officers that were so paranoid about weapons that they couldn't distinguish the difference between taking off a hat or reaching for a gun. My standard for a justified shooting is when a suspect presents an immediate lethal danger to an officer. What's yours? Because apparently ours differ.

Yes, that is why I didn't believe what any of the witnesses said in the Ferguson case. If their claims were backed up by physical evidence (or at least not go against what the evidence said) I would have been more inclined to believe what they said. I don't understand what you mean things were wrong in that process? We were able to find out what really happened using forensic evidence and that meant that an innocent man was kept out of prison.

 

Yes, I know there are officers that racially profile black men and women. Unfortunately there is still racism in America and law enforcement is not exempt from it either. However, that does not mean that every police officer is racist or racially profiles people and it doesn't mean that every time that a black person is stopped or there is an incident involving a use of force that the officer did so because they were black. I acknowledge actual racism, not this race baiting BS that the media puts out. There is a legal definition of reasonable suspicion and I feel like I have done enough research for you so far so I am not going to spoon feed it to you this time especially since you are probably just going to shoot it down and say that you don't agree with so it must be illogical.

 

Where did I say that shooting him was the only option? You asked why the officers couldn't tase him or tackle him so I gave you very legitimate reasons why those two things were not options. No where did I state that the only option was to shoot him.

 

I got the idea the same way you just said that I am saying the only option for the Gardena officers was to shoot the suspect. You do realize there are other items that can be used to kill someone; a gun is not the only deadly weapon out there. A hammer is a common household maintenance tool and you could kill someone pretty easily with a simple hammer. If inmates in prison can kill people with a sharpened plastic toothbrush I'm pretty sure you can kill someone with a screwdriver. I don't make up my own standards and laws; there is already a legal standard as to what makes a shooting justified and that is the standard I go by.