Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 170 of 670 (848693)
02-13-2019 8:09 PM


Yet Again
Six police officers in Vallejo, California, shot and killed 20-year old black man Willie McCoy who was asleep in his locked vehicle with a handgun in his lap. The official police account is that their attempts to waken him were unsuccessful, then he suddenly woke up, was commanded by police to keep his hands visible, he quickly reached downward for his gun, and fearing for their safety all six officers fired their weapons. They attempted medical assistance but McCoy died at the scene. The gun was stolen.
First let's assume the police account is accurate. What level of incompetency is required to shoot an armed sleeping man as he wakes up? Where do six police officers stand to fire at a single individual while not placing any other officer in the line of fire, or innocent civilians? All six fired? Really?
Now let's assume the police account is not accurate. What actually happened can't be known unless there were body cams or surveillance video or the police start telling the truth. I won't speculate.
All you police defenders can start explaining why the killing of Willie McCoy was a good kill.
The police will be investigated and found not at fault. Oh what a surprise.
In a year or two a jury will award Willie McCoy's family a million or two.
Source: Six California officers shot man as he woke in his car
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 03-30-2019 9:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 670 (848697)
02-13-2019 8:50 PM


And Again!
Gee, a bounty today!
Yesterday a masked man with a gun held up a T-Mobile store in Queens, New York, and was holding two employees in a back room. Police officers arrived, several ran inside, more officers arrived, the masked man advanced on the officers in the store, and then the police officers unleashed a hail of gunfire. Two officers in the store were hit and one died of his injuries. The holdup man's gun was fake. An investigation has begun.
Rank and file police officers should not have guns.
Source: ”Friendly Fire’ Killing of Detective: 42 Shots, 7 Officers, 11 Seconds
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 02-14-2019 9:18 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 172 of 670 (848704)
02-14-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
02-13-2019 8:50 PM


Re: And Again!
It's the gift that just keeps on giving! The New York Police Department has already figured out who murdered the detective who died in the Tuesday T-Mobie hold up by Christopher Ransom wielding a fake gun. Guess who it was? Christopher Ransom, wielder of the fake gun. He will be charged with murder in the death of Detective Brian Simonsen. Problem solved. Case closed.
Seven police officers, 42 shots in 11 seconds, and the guy with the fake gun is the murderer. We'll never hear how this ends, but I predict Detective Simonsen's family will take an adversarial position and sue the city. More millions going out of public coffers for no good reason.
Again, seven police officers, 42 shots in 11 seconds. I'm not criticizing them. They're just normal people in a high pressure situation demanding instant reaction. But guns are too dangerous to be in the possession of normal people, even those with standard police training, or even military training. It was a hostage situation with no immediate threat of murdering the hostages. They should have stationed themselves at the exits and awaited a negotiation team.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 02-13-2019 8:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by DrJones*, posted 02-14-2019 10:24 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 174 of 670 (848833)
02-16-2019 9:49 AM


Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
YouTube personality Zhoie Perez was shot outside a Jewish Synagogue in Los Angeles while filming, conducting what she calls a "First Amendment audit." The guard warned her away, told her he was going to fire, but she continued filming, so he fired. The guard has been arrested. The article quotes Carlos Miller, who writes about auditors:
quote:
“This is not only an example of the paranoia in this country among cops and security guards when it comes to citizens with cameras but an example of the dangers of placing armed security guards and cops in schools. [Like] many other cops and security guards, this guard lacked basic de-escalation skills, choosing to escalate a nonviolent and lawful interaction with a citizen by firing a deadly weapon.”
This "auditing" thing is new to me, but in my view the more cameras the better. That's the only way we'll get a true picture of law enforcement lying and misbehavior. Obviously guns should also be taken away from undertrained security guards.
Source: What is ”auditing,’ and why did a YouTuber get shot for doing it?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 670 (848933)
02-18-2019 4:26 PM


More Brilliance from the Police
If you were a policeman on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect and you spotted him on the street near a crowded bus stop, what would you do? If your answer is, "Walk up to him and confront him," then DING DING DING you are correct. How else can you insure that five people waiting at the bus stop would get shot, with one in critical condition. It is not known at this time how many of the five were shot by police and how many by the suspect.
When James Blake, a famous retired pro tennis player wearing a suit and tie, was mistaken for a suspect outside a ritzy Manhattan hotel a couple years ago he was tackled to the ground and handcuffed by a plainclothes officer before he knew what hit him. While the officer in this case was disciplined because the suspect they were searching for wasn't thought dangerous, tackling to the ground does seem the right approach for an armed robbery suspect.
This is yet another argument for disarming our rank and file police force. Officers without guns are not going to confront an armed robbery suspect. They're either going to tackle him while he's distracted or call for armed (and better trained) backup.
As I mentioned up top, it isn't known who fired the shots that hit the bystanders, but of course the more who were hit by police bullets the worse it looks for the police.
Source: Five bystanders shot during police shootout in New Orleans
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 670 (849043)
02-22-2019 9:32 AM


Police Don't Need Guns
From the opening monologue of No Country for Old Men:
quote:
"I was sheriff of this county when I was 25 years old. Hard to believe. Grandfather was a lawman, father was too. Me and him was sheriffs at the same time, him up in Plano and me out here. I think he's pretty proud of that. I know I was. Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. Lot of folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough'd never carry one - that's the younger Jim. Gaston Borkins wouldn't wear one up in Comanche County. And I always liked to hear about the old-timers. Never missed a chance to do so."
The speaker, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (played by Tommy Lee Jones), continues on about how times have changed, have become more violent. He ponders how the old-timers would have handled it, would they carry guns today. Don't know, but I'd like to think not. Of course this is a movie drama adaptation from a book of fiction, so who knows if any old time sheriffs really went without guns.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by caffeine, posted 02-22-2019 10:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 02-22-2019 11:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 183 of 670 (849067)
02-23-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Hyroglyphx
02-22-2019 8:22 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:
The First Amendment Auditing phenomenon is basically people with cameras filming areas likely to elicit some kind of response for 'suspicious' behavior. It's mostly done by trolls looking for an easy payday.
Denigration of those exercising their constitutional rights is mostly done by those who find the scrutiny, shall we call it, inconvenient.
You need some internal reflection. Ask yourself why you're denigrating those seeking openness and praising those maintaining secrecy.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 184 of 670 (849068)
02-23-2019 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hyroglyphx
02-22-2019 8:27 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
Hyroglyphx writes:
You've mentioned that you think guns in the hands of highly trained officers is acceptable and think only they should have them. So then wouldn't it make just as much sense to make all police highly trained instead of disarming them? Seems like your real issue is the perception of low standards more so than cops with guns.
Read the thread - bell shaped curve. There are around a million policepersons in the US. The ones best able to handle the responsibility of firearm possession are that tiny portion under the right-hand tail.
The reason training won't solve the police shooting problem is the same as why training won't solve the motor vehicle accident problem: it's impossible to maintain a high level of training across so many people. The emphasis has instead gone into improvements in automobile safety and technology. Analogously, all police officers should wear body cams that are always on and can't be turned off (neither video or sound), especially if they're carrying guns.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 670 (849069)
02-23-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2018 3:49 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Last September in Message 153 I said:
Percy in Message 153 writes:
Reserve judgment all you like. If Marquez's family brings a civil lawsuit it is highly likely that the city of South Pasadena will be paying out millions. Want to lay odds?
Well, what a surprise: 'ER' actress Vanessa Marquez's mother files wrongful death lawsuit after fatal shooting by police (news report is from Fox News, the gold standard of news reporting, so we know this is true).
Now can we start placing bets about how many millions South Pasadena will be paying out? Everyone gets to pick a number between $0 and $10 million. I pick $3 million.
By the way, way to go ignoring all the invalidations of your points when you posted a 56 word response (your Message 154) to a 1329 word message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2018 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 190 of 670 (849079)
02-23-2019 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:14 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:
First of all, police encounters have been documented for a longer period of time than there's been smart phones used by the general public.
Oh, do please go on about this pre-video-era documentation.
Law enforcement knows that audio/visual recordings weed out the officers who would use excessive force and protect good cops from false accusations.
Fixed your grammar, which was as bad as your argument. Yeah, right, cops want cameras. That's why the damn things have on/off switches and audio kill.
Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations. Tamir Rice's homicide was ruled justified. Anyone beaten to a pulp is simply accused of resisting arrest. Just look at all the videos of police yelling at a helpless person to stop resisting while the person is yelling, "I'm not resisting." Police officers are so very familiar with the elements of accepted police conduct that they lie about their adherence to it even as they are violating it.
So the assertion that police are out to "maintain secrecy" is misguided and misinformed.
Oh, sure, that's why it took so much effort to unveil the details of the death of Freddie Gray, shoved unrestrained and handcuffed into the back of a police van that then took him on a wild ride that killed him. That's why it took 13 months to make public the police dash cam video of the murder of Laquan McDonald - police officer Jason Van Dyke was found guilty at trial of second degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.
The blue line, more like a blue wall, is not fiction. Police look out for their own, including lying and fabricating or disappearing evidence if necessary. Often the only weapon people have against unrestrained police misconduct is video. Video protects the public by a far wider margin than police, like this video of former NFL player Desmond Marrow being arrested after police mistook his cellphone for a gun in broad daylight (oh, by the way, why don't you tell us again how police officers don't fear guns, they just have a healthy respect for them, so I can again repeat all the documentation of police responding with a hail of bullets to even just what they thought was a gun):
Marrow was rammed against the back of a pickup and thrown to the ground, loosing teeth in the process, and choked (he claims to unconsciousness, though this cannot be verified from the video). There was an investigation and one of the police officers was later fired. Without video that would not have been the outcome.
As to the auditors, and I'm speaking in generalities as some are actually respectable, I find most of them needlessly antagonistic. The goal is to CREATE an encounter, not merely document one, vis--vis by instigating one through self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fixed your spelling. Congratulations for again denigrating those exercising their constitutional rights. Seems you find anything police don't like to be objectionable and open to any criticism you can make up. Time to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors.
Face reality - power corrupts and requires meticulous oversight.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 9:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 670 (849080)
02-23-2019 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:24 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
Hyroglyphx writes:
And yet, curiously, you seem to have less of a problem with 15 million 15 year olds out there on the open highway...
Huh? Are you cuckoo, and why are you making things up? First, there can only be around 4 or 5 million 15 year olds in the US, so your figure is nonsense. Second, learner's permits require a licensed adult in the car. Third, there are no states in the union where you can get a driver's license at age 15. Fourth, of course I'm concerned about the competence of young drivers and am in favor of whatever improvements are possible.
...than you do one cop with a gun.
You are making things up again - I never commented on such a comparison, nor could I have since you only just now introduced it. Is this the only way you can debate these days? You're rapidly descending to just one notch better than Faith or Marc9000.
Perhaps even more interesting, you take no issue with 18-year old men training and carrying high-capacity assault rifles in the military,...
Are soldiers carrying their high-capacity assault rifles on our streets and using them to accost our citizens? No? Then no, I don't take issue with an armed military. Got any more nonsensical arguments?
...but if they carry weapons 10 years later as civilian law enforcement officers somehow it then becomes an absurdity.
Not an absurdity - I never used that word in this context. Why can't you argue with what I actually say instead of inventing things you wish I'd said? The term I would use is "public menace." Most police should not have a gun because it turns them into a public menace.
A little continuity would go a long way towards advancing your position.
You mean consistency, not continuity. I grant that the words you're putting in my mouth are not consistent, but that's your fault. Only when you can accurately state your opponent's arguments can you effectively rebut them, and you haven't reached that stage yet. Dropping in every six months for five minutes of typing isn't going to get you there, either.
As to BWC's continuously running, there's policy in place for most departments that they be turned on and passively recording except when in restrooms, hospitals, courtrooms, etc where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. So the cameras are running within an entire shift and capable of capturing every critical incident.
Oh, get off it. Whenever these body cam recordings are needed for evidence too often there are gaps in important places or they weren't even on at all, for example the shooting of Justine Damond, who called 911 to report a rape then walked up to the police car window when it arrived and was immediately shot (even though there was no body cam footage there was still sufficient evidence to arrest Officer Noor for murder - the case still hasn't gone to trial so there's much that's not yet known, but we do know the body cams were off).
You're not even trying. You're just making up what you wish were true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 04-26-2019 7:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 670 (849081)
02-23-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:30 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyrogrlyphx writes:
Well, what a surprise: 'ER' actress Vanessa Marquez's mother files wrongful death lawsuit after fatal shooting by police (news report is from Fox News, the gold standard of news reporting, so we know this is true).
Now can we start placing bets about how many millions South Pasadena will be paying out? Everyone gets to pick a number between $0 and $10 million. I pick $3 million.
This is the world's most litigious nation in human history. Of course the lawsuits will fly. That'll never go away, whether police are in the right, in the wrong, or just plain in existence. It's par for the course.
Police murder the person being wellness-checked, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed, and your defense is that it's not because of the possibility of serious misconduct but that we're overly litigious? Seriously? Again, you're not even trying. You're not thinking, just typing.
By the way, way to go ignoring all the invalidations of your points when you posted a 56 word response (your Message 154) to a 1329 word message.
Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago.
How does this response even make sense? Six months ago my responses to your arguments were right before your very eyes and you ignored them. That's a fact. Deal with it.
Would you like me to leave?
I pretty much meant what I said and implied, that I would like you to behave as an honest debater, if that's not asking too much, and address responses to your arguments, or at least say that you have no response.
Look, we get it, you like the police, you're police affiliated in some way that if you've made clear I don't happen to recall, and it feels to you like this group you feel close to is being unfairly attacked. But a large number of specific incidents have been entered into evidence in this thread, and they're all indefensible. Defending the indefensible is a losing battle every time. Murdering a 12-year old with a toy gun? Murdering someone who reports a rape? Murdering a person being wellness checked? You're defending these police murders - what is wrong with you?
Human life is sacred and murder is a heinous crime. Murder cannot with any integrity be defended, even if committed by someone or something you love very, very much.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 10:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 195 of 670 (849095)
02-24-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 9:59 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:
Oh, do please go on about this pre-video-era documentation.
You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify.
You're having trouble remembering again, because I have described police trying to maintain secrecy in this thread. There are many cases of police departments sitting on video evidence for months, in some cases not even admitting that it exists, and I've entered evidence of some of them into this thread. There's the blue wall of secrecy where police lie and cover for each other, and I've described some of those too. If it's more evidence of same that you want and you'd like to get into it then you should open a new thread since this thread's about police shootings. I'd be delighted to provide more evidence of police lack of transparency, stonewalling, and coverups.
If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them.
Were you born yesterday? Portable video cameras became widely available in the 1970's (VHS and BetaMax), smart phones not until 2007 about 35 years later.
People can argue all day about the interpretation of facts, but not about the facts themselves. That smart phones didn't even exist until 2007 is a fact. That portable video cameras existed for 35 years prior is a fact. Therefore your claim that in-car cameras being around far longer than smart phones has absolutely nothing do with their "evidentiary value" and that "departments want them." It has to do with when they were invented.
And while portable video technology preceded smartphones by nearly half a century, I don't think there were a lot of police departments employing dash cams up until the last decade or so. An NBC report says that by 2007 61% of police departments employed dash cams, though it doesn't say the degree of deployment across department police cars, or what percent of the time they were in working order. This YouTube video is cued up to the exact right spot, you only have to listen for a few seconds:
And dash cam and body cam use is likely to decline outside of large police departments because small departments are finding the cost overhead of maintaining archival video to be too great. It would be nice if state or federal government could step in with subsidies. (Smaller police departments dropping body camera programs amid high costs)
Who do you think wants all interactions with police taped more: the police or your average citizen. If you think it's the police then you are wrong. It's nothing but a headache for the police. First there's the inherent problem that the human mind is not a tape recorder, so police reports will inevitably deviate from any video. The potential problems only escalate from there. How much easier it is for the police when there is no video, when it becomes just a matter of their word against the perp's word, just like back in the good old days when police actions were rarely challenged.
Yeah, right, cops want cameras. That's why the damn things have on/off switches and audio kill.
Yes, because as I said there are legitimate legal reasons not to be filming 24 hours day.
Nobody's complaining about cameras not rolling while police cars are parked in the compound or police officers are off duty. They're complaining about the audio being cut off or the camera being shut off at critical points during interactions and arrests.
Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations. Tamir Rice's homicide was ruled justified. Anyone beaten to a pulp is simply accused of resisting arrest. Just look at all the videos of police yelling at a helpless person to stop resisting while the person is yelling, "I'm not resisting." Police officers are so very familiar with the elements of accepted police conduct that they lie about their adherence to it even as they are violating it.
You do understand that these high profile cases goes to a Grand Jury who either bills or no-bills these decisions, right? Its not as if it goes to the Chief of Police and he or she decides. There's a legal process that goes right past the department to avoid exactly what you're insinuating, which is nepotism. So if you take issue with the outcome of any given investigation then you have to consider the source.
You're blowing smoke again. There's *video* out there independent of whether charges are ever filed or it ever goes to a grand jury or to trial or results in a conviction.
Let's introduce a new name: Daniel Hambrick. He was running away from Nashville police officer Andrew Delke when he was shot three times and killed. Delke was cleared of any wrongdoing: it was ruled a good kill. Subsequent events led to reconsideration, and Delke now faces a murder trial. The legal process is ongoing at this time, but regardless of the outcome there is still this unequivocal video (you only have to watch the first 30 seconds or so):
So there ya go, yet more evidence that rank and file police should not have guns.
Oh, sure, that's why it took so much effort to unveil the details of the death of Freddie Gray, shoved unrestrained and handcuffed into the back of a police van that then took him on a wild ride that killed him. That's why it took 13 months to make public the police dash cam video of the murder of Laquan McDonald - police officer Jason Van Dyke was found guilty at trial of second degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.
So when the justice system works to hold garbage officers accountable, you're still not pleased with the outcome? I don't understand what your objection is.
You don't remember this, you don't understand that. I don't think popping in every six months is working for you, unless your goal is to make people explain everything all over again from scratch. Go reread the thread if there's things you don't understand or remember. Anyway, my objection is very simple: rank and file police with guns are a menace because they too often injure or kill people. It's not hard to understand.
We shouldn't punish the poor police officers who society should never have issued guns in the first place - it's not their fault they accepted the equipment and training they were told their jobs required. It's not their fault that statistically some police will find themselves in situations ripe for bad decisions, and it just happened that it was them it happened to.
Seems you find anything police don't like to be objectionable and open to any criticism you can make up. Time to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors.
I think I was very fair and measured in explaining exactly what I found objectionable. You are obfuscating...
Now you're just imitating Trump. You may as well have said, "That's just fake news. I think I've been very fair. I don't think there's been anyone in the history of our country who's been more fair than me."
I never said I take issue with people filming...
And I never said you did.
I said many of these auditors try to manufacture an outcome. That's not documenting, that's instigating something with the intent to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You're repeating your mistake over and over again in one post after another, denigrating auditors without evidence. Again, it is time (way past time) for you to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors. How do you know that mostly their goal is to instigate confrontations? I think you've been taken in by the stuff you're reading on the Internet.
But let's say you're absolutely right. Let's say the First Amendment Auditors are trying to manufacture an outcome, that they're trying to instigate an inappropriate police response. What does it say about our police if instigating inappropriate police responses only requires taking video? What kind of inappropriate police response might wearing a hoodie on a hot day instigate? And God forbid don't try to pull out a cell phone, we all know they're indistinguishable from guns.
The thread's topic is police shootings, but this First Amendment Auditor stuff does have a sort of tie-in because of its evidence of the entitlement felt by many police. We're grateful for the service they provide, and that we require that service is why we grant them great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. Most rank and file police are not prepared for the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 9:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2019 10:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 670 (849100)
02-24-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 10:31 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:
Police murder the person being wellness-checked, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed, and your defense is that it's not because of the possibility of serious misconduct but that we're overly litigious? Seriously? Again, you're not even trying. You're not thinking, just typing.
I told you when that story broke that I wouldn't speak to details that are unknown to me and said that, in general, if you reach or point a weapon at an officer that its pretty cut and dry as to what the ramifications can be.
You're working hard at maintaining ignorance. Again: NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez
But you mentioned that the family is now suing, as if to insinuate that it alone proves or disproves anything of evidentiary value when it doesn't. People sue the police, they sue the government, they sue corporations, they sue everyone. The act of pursuing a lawsuit is not in and of itself evidence of anything except our litigious nature.
I didn't insinuate anything. I predicted the family would win and be awarded $3 million. What's your prediction?
Here's a nifty quote from Family of actress Vanessa Marquez files $20 million wrongful death claim against South Pasadena that speaks for several issues we've been discussing:
quote:
The claim mentions that the names of officers involved in the shooting, their body cam footage, and coroner reports have been kept under wraps by city officials.
This ties into our discussion in these ways:
  • The South Pasadena Police Department is being secretive by not mentioning the names of any involved officers, by not releasing any body cam footing, and by not releasing the coroner reports.
  • This is closely related to the first point, but I mention it separately because it is so important: the South Pasadena Police Department has been sitting on this information for months.
  • There is body cam footage. This should be revealing, especially since Marquez is unable to testify. We'll get to see to what degree police reports agree with body cam footage.
How does this response even make sense? Six months ago my responses to your arguments were right before your very eyes and you ignored them. That's a fact. Deal with it.
We rehashed the same topic until it was dead, with neither side conceding a single point to the other. So what would you have us do? Go on for 10 more pages in the exact same vein endlessly? I'll disappear again and pop up a month or two from now. I don't have time or give that much of a shit to argue with anyone endlessly.
How does this explain how "Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago" even makes any sense?
Anyway, so now you're claiming discussion was at an impasse. That's incorrect, not to mention a cop out. You made one incorrect statement after another, then simply abandoned defending them and disappeared for six months.
I pretty much meant what I said and implied, that I would like you to behave as an honest debater, if that's not asking too much, and address responses to your arguments, or at least say that you have no response.
I have always been very open, honest, and candid about things I believe I have gotten wrong. I have apologized at times and have been very forthright in being introspective, have I not? .... especially when compared to some of the blowhards there are on this forum.
If you do say so yourself.
About blowhards at the forum, there isn't a lot of that these days. There is one guy who comes back at long intervals named Big_Al who's pretty much a blowhard. What you're doing isn't being a blowhard. You're raising false and/or spurious arguments, pretending they have merit, then abandoning discussion as if our arguments were equally meritorious and cancelled each other out.
Look, we get it, you like the police, you're police affiliated in some way that if you've made clear I don't happen to recall, and it feels to you like this group you feel close to is being unfairly attacked.
I look at it the same way I would if someone made a racial comment based upon a stereotype. It's not fair to make assumptions about people based upon their race alone. Well, I happen to think its not fair nor productive to make assumptions about cops based solely on their profession.
What a horribly chosen analogy, and what a mistaken characterization. There are no assumptions here. The police killed the subject of a wellness check. No assumptions necessary. It's not as bad as the babysitter murdering the baby, but it's pretty close.
I'll be the first one to throw a criminal cop under the bus...
If you want to argue that when things go wrong it's a bad cop then you're on your own. It's not an argument I'm making and not one I accept. Not that bad cops don't exist, but for the most part rank and file cops are just doing their job the best they can, and they could do it best without guns.
...but this festering mentality as of late that is incredibly hostile towards police in general is becoming dangerous dogma.
There is no hostility toward the police. My consistent stance has always been that firearms are far too dangerous to be entrusted to people, and police are people. Of course someone in enforcement has to be armed, and I've proposed that firearms only be entrusted to specially trained units.
But a large number of specific incidents have been entered into evidence in this thread, and they're all indefensible. Defending the indefensible is a losing battle every time. Murdering a 12-year old with a toy gun? Murdering someone who reports a rape? Murdering a person being wellness checked? You're defending these police murders - what is wrong with you?
When in the fuck have I ever "defended" ANY of those specific cases???
You're the one defending police use of guns, so when you accused me of hanging my entire thesis on the Marquez case I reminded you that the thread is full of cases and suggested we switch to the Tamir Rice case. Your response? Crickets. What am I supposed to think? If you want to offer no defense when your claims are shown false then that's your choice, but don't blame others for reading into it that you have no defense, and that your knee jerk response will always be one of a) the police are not at fault; b) it was a bad cop; c) all the facts aren't in yet.
The only case we discussed was the wellness check and you insisted on rushing to judgment. I said I don't have all the facts. You then provided some alleged facts. One of the facts that you alleged was that she pointed a gun at officers.
Based on the police account I said Marquez reached for a gun, not pointed a gun.
I said if that's true, then its pretty open and shut...
You said it was open and shut when she reached for a gun. Is that still your opinion, or has your opinion changed and now it's only open and shut if she pointed a gun?
BUT, again, I don't know if any of those are facts, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.
You're so predictable. We know with full certainty that the police killed the subject of a wellness check. It doesn't get much more indefensible than that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 10:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 198 of 670 (849259)
03-02-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2019 10:15 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:
Hyroglyphx writes:
You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify.
You're having trouble remembering again, because I have described police trying to maintain secrecy in this thread. There are many cases of police departments sitting on video evidence for months, in some cases not even admitting that it exists, and I've entered evidence of some of them into this thread. There's the blue wall of secrecy where police lie and cover for each other, and I've described some of those too.
I would never say that none of that has ever happened, because 100% it has happened.
First you say I "have yet to qualify" my claims of police secrecy (implying it doesn't happen), then you say "I would never say that...because 100% it has happened." You have to make up your mind. Right now you're making no sense by ping-ponging between the opposite viewpoints of (paraphrasing) "it doesn't happen" and "I of course acknowledge it happens."
My contention is that you seem to think its the rule when I think it's the exception.
Police abuse of power and authority is rampant. Until recently New York City was a shining example of abuse with their "stop and frisk" policy. DC is still doing it. Secrecy is all part of the mix. The police don't want transparency in how they perform their jobs.
Were you born yesterday? Portable video cameras became widely available in the 1970's (VHS and BetaMax), smart phones not until 2007 about 35 years later.
And those portable cameras were not designed with the intent to document police interactions, quite unlike the in-car camera which was ONLY designed to document police interactions. Seriously, are you gonna try to argue the point?
You're not responding to what I said. I was responding to what you said, and I quoted what you said. Here it is again: "If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them."
The answer is what I already said and that you seem to be ignoring. There have been in-car cameras far longer than smart phones because THEY WERE INVENTED 35 YEARS BEFORE SMART PHONES. Sorry to shout, but you seem to be having trouble grasping a trivially simple point. Your claim of in-car cameras being around far longer than smart phones has absolutely nothing do with their "evidentiary value" and that "departments want them." It has to do with when they were invented.
What other reason do the police have to document their interactions if not to separate fact from allegation?
Looked at from above through rose-colored glasses this is of course the justification, but once police turn the video on it captures all of reality, not just the parts that back up the police. Video is proving to a major embarrassment to police forces all across the country as it capture one police misbehavior after another.
And then, if that wasn't enough they implemented Body Worn Camera systems to document when the officer is out of the vehicle. Why do you suppose they exist and departments purchase them, which is incredibly expensive to maintain and support long-term? Because it keeps cops honest,...
Except it doesn't keep cops honest. Seriously, do you ever vet anything you say, or does it all come off the top of your head. Try this headline: Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior, Study Says. Or how about Do body cameras affect police officers’ behavior? Not so much:
quote:
The study, which involved about 2,200 officers, found that the cameras did not change officer behavior, casting doubt on the devices’ ability to prevent abuse.
Or how about Why Don't Police Body Cameras Work Like We Expected?:
quote:
Police-worn body cameras do not reduce the instances of police use of force. Nor do they reduce citizen complaints about excessive force.
More research is needed, but it does seem safe to say that video documentation shows police in the wrong far more often than they ever expected, and for this reason police enthusiasm for them is waning, particularly since they also incur significant overhead of about $1000 per officer, more in smaller jurisdictions where there are no economies of scale.
...it proves if the criminal did what they say (s)he did, and most importantly, prevents people like you that has fostered such a negative attitude towards law enforcement that your default judgment is one of constant suspicion.
It also frequently proves that the police did what they tried to hide they did.
My "default judgment" is not "constant suspicion." It is prudence. When a gun enters the vicinity I exit the vicinity, including an armed policeman. Guns are not safe, no matter whose hands they're in. I see no reason to trust an armed policeman to safely employ his firearm. I refer you back just a couple posts to the incident where five bystanders at a bus stop were injured when police tried to arrest an armed robbery suspect. It should come as no surprise that even though this happened two weeks ago we still have no information about whether the bystanders were injured by police or by the suspect. Do you really think they don't know by now? Do you really believe that if the bystanders had been shot by the suspect that the information wouldn't have already been released? More police secrecy protecting their own. Someone's going to have to get a court injunction before the police start releasing information. Typical.
And all of that is supported by data.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
That's a 2014 study with flaws because officers were each day randomly assigned cameras or not. The just released study I mentioned above fixes this flaw and the results contradict the earlier study. When officers wear cameras every day they become accustomed to them in a short time and revert to normal behavior.
Who do you think wants all interactions with police taped more: the police or your average citizen.
My answer to that question: Who gives a fuck? Reason: Both sides benefit. It's irrelevant as to who you or I think benefits or desires it most... what's important is that it exists.
If who benefits the most is a "who gives a fuck" question, then why did you spend so much time claiming the police had the most to benefit?
Nobody's complaining about cameras not rolling while police cars are parked in the compound or police officers are off duty. They're complaining about the audio being cut off or the camera being shut off at critical points during interactions and arrests.
Oh, cool, so when that happens .000000003% of the time, then go after them.
Your figure is made up. You never seem able to bring real data into the discussion. I never mentioned any figure, but however often it happens it turns up in story after story that the video or audio was off during crucial points.
Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations.
Well, therein lies the problem... you think guns are bad on an inherent level, so go figure that you would think all police shootings are unjustified.
You continue to be unable to respond to what I actually say. You instead make up things I didn't say and then respond to that. You do this so frequently that I'm going to have to call you a liar. I never said all police shootings are unjustified. What I said was that the police rule almost all police shootings justified, which is absurd on its face and obviously can't be true. And when there's video it turns out it's not true a lot of the time. That's why rank-and-file police should not have guns.
Go figure, the guy who thinks cops shouldn't have guns, believes that most officer involved shootings are unjustified.
You are repeating a lie. Again, I never said that. If the only way you can win an argument is to make up what the other guy said then you may as well give up in a forum such as this, because what I actually said is right there in my posts.
As I said, the fact that these go to a Grand Jury and THEY decide, is part and parcel how all trials go.... if you don't like the outcome, then go talk to the jurors.
You're talking nonsense. Rulings concerning whether a police shooting is justified don't come from grand juries. You're again making stuff up off the top of your head. Jurisdictional attorneys or review boards make the decisions about whether the shooting was justified, and only when they conclude it was unjustified would it go to a grand jury.
Let's introduce a new name: Daniel Hambrick. He was running away from Nashville police officer Andrew Delke when he was shot three times and killed. Delke was cleared of any wrongdoing: it was ruled a good kill. Subsequent events led to reconsideration, and Delke now faces a murder trial. The legal process is ongoing at this time, but regardless of the outcome there is still this unequivocal video (you only have to watch the first 30 seconds or so)
Oh, so, in other words it's likely to go to a Grand Jury who, based on the evidence, will either acquit or convict the officer? You mean, like that?
What is the matter with you? Just how ignorant of the law are you? Delke is facing a murder trial, so obviously it's already gone through the grand jury. What's actually relevant is that video was helpful in changing what was initially ruled a justifiable homicide into a charge of murder.
my objection is very simple: rank and file police with guns are a menace because they too often injure or kill people. It's not hard to understand.
Yeah, what for, eh?
How does that response even make any sense? And why did you post those YouTube videos as if they somehow contradict the fact that police too often injure or kill people. If you're just trying to say that there are times the police need guns then I agree with you. It's just that it shouldn't be rank and file police who have guns, only specially trained units.
You're repeating your mistake over and over again in one post after another, denigrating auditors without evidence. Again, it is time (way past time) for you to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors. How do you know that mostly their goal is to instigate confrontations? I think you've been taken in by the stuff you're reading on the Internet.
There's literally hundreds upon hundreds of them. I've watched countless hours of them and some of them are good and some of them are awful.
Makes sense. Bell shaped curve.
Is the bell shaped curve meaningful for you, or should I stop mentioning it and take another tack?
But let's say you're absolutely right. Let's say the First Amendment Auditors are trying to manufacture an outcome, that they're trying to instigate an inappropriate police response. What does it say about our police if instigating inappropriate police responses only requires taking video? What kind of inappropriate police response might wearing a hoodie on a hot day instigate? And God forbid don't try to pull out a cell phone, we all know they're indistinguishable from guns.
I'm not defending the cops that are stupid enough to get baited in by that bullshit.
And I'm not saying that cops are stupid at all. I'm saying that the vast majority of police lie under the huge belly of the bell shaped curve and are somewhere around average, which isn't good enough to be carrying a gun.
I said many of the auditors instigate confrontations and its not just cops... mailmen, private security, fast food workers, corporation headquarters, Scientologists, etc....
Yeah, okay, we get it, you don't like First Amendment Auditors. Not the topic.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2019 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2019 2:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024