Police Shootings

And any attempt to rationalize otherwise is a futile endeavor for me to undertake. I think we've both sufficiently explained our positions that leads to a perpetual stalemate. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We've found common ground on other debates, but I think we just see things too differently on this issue.

Murder is always a felony. I think what you meant to say is Capital Murder if the murder was committed in the commission of another felony

The First Amendment Auditing phenomenon is basically people with cameras filming areas likely to elicit some kind of response for 'suspicious' behavior. Its mostly done by trolls looking for an easy payday. Law enforcement is generally protected by Qualified Immunity, except in cases that infringe on civil liberties. If they can get someone dumb enough to take the bait, they set traps in the hopes their civil liberties get violated and the officer or department is open season for lawsuits. For the most part though, most of them seem to know the limitations of what they legally can or cannot do. Although I find these audits to be mostly childish, its generally harmless. This security guards response though is CRIMINAL. He should be in a jail cellEdited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

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.

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. Law enforcement knows that audio/visual recordings weeds out the officers who would use excessive force and protects good cops from false accusations. So the assertion that police are out to "maintain secrecy" is misguided and misinformed.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 a vis by instigating one through self-fulfilling prophecy.

And yet, curiously, you seem to have less of a problem with 15 million 15 year olds out there on the open highway than you do one cop with a gun. Perhaps even more interesting, you take no issue with 18-year old men training and carrying high-capacity assault rifles in the military, but if they carry weapons 10 years later as civilian law enforcement officers somehow it then becomes an absurdity. A little continuity would go a long way towards advancing your position.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.

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. Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago. Would you like me to leave?

You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify. 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. Yes, because as I said there are legitimate legal reasons not to be filming 24 hours day. 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. 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. I think I was very fair and measured in explaining exactly what I found objectionable. You are obfuscating... I never said I take issue with people filming 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. I look at it the same way I would if someone made a racial comment based upon a stereotype. Its 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. I'll be the first one to throw a criminal cop under the bus... but this festering mentality as of late that is incredibly hostile towards police in general is becoming dangerous dogma. When in the fuck have I ever "defended" ANY of those specific cases??? 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. I said if that's true, then its pretty open and shut... BUT, again, I don't know if any of those are facts, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.

I would never say that none of that has ever happened, because 100% it has happened. My contention is that you seem to think its the rule when I think its the exception. 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? What other reason do the police have to document their interactions if not separate fact from allegation?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, 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.And all of that is supported by data.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3 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. Oh, cool, so when that happens .000000003% of the time, then go after them. 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. Go figure, the guy who thinks cops shouldn't have guns, believes that most officer involved shootings are unjustified. 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. 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? Yeah, what for, eh? 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. I'm not defending the cops that are stupid enough to get baited in by that bullshit. I said many of the auditors instigate confrontations and its not just cops... mailmen, private security, fast food workers, corporation headquarters, Scientologists, etc....

Unlike the hard-hitting data offered by the music-oriented magazine, Rolling Stone, an actual properly sourced, properly cited, detailed and painstakingly thorough analysis looks like this. And this is the kind of care and attention to detail that I'd like to see concerning your welfare check case in order to come to a proper deliberation.... and quite honestly, so should you.WordPress.com

You make it seem that this line of "secrecy" is so prevalent that its basically part and parcel a function of law enforcement itself. That's the qualification I'm looking for, because you have a tendency to paint with the broadest strokes possible. Just because there's evidence of, say, 10 boxing matches being fixed in human history does not equal that all boxing matches are fixed. And you are conveniently omitting relevant information to the overall CONTEXT of the discussion.... rather underhandedly, I might add. Your ENTIRE point was that the police are so secret and want to bury the light as often as possible... my retort was then why did they specifically create in-car and bodyworn cameras? You still haven't answered it because its rather obvious at this point that you're wrong and you are aware of it. So instead you attack strawmen to deflect away from it. Yeah, its called "accountability." You should be leaping with joy that the non-transparent police force not only has such technology at its disposal but that you, the common citizen, can open-records request any footage you want and scour it for unnoticed malfeasance. Thank you for regaling us with anecdotes that represent .0002% of the entire population, but again, your infinitesimally minute number does not and cannot compare to the billions of incidents that don't happen. Its a question of utility. Does the utility of this object outweigh the potential harm it could create. Answer: yes.And for curiosities sake, what is your gameplan to defend your home, your wife, and little dog Pluto against armed intruders? Are you gonna read passages about non-violence from Ghandi and hope they stop? Oh, and what is that normal behavior? What's your baseline? I very clearly indicated that everyone benefits, Percy. The police have vested interests in it just as the general public does. Yeah, just like the figure that exists about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Because those figures don't exist, but you seem to think that police conveniently turning off cameras is so problematic. So the onus is on you to prevent the evidence, otherwise you're just making shit up as you go. And I am saying that YOUR metric as a DIRECT RESULT of your fear of guns taints your judgment on how most courts decide in terms of justified or unjustified shootings. You seem to think someone needs to actually fire a weapon at an officer before they can lawfully return fire... Your severe lack of objectivity is what's in question. I wonder how on Earth I could have arrived at such a conclusion. It might have something to do with page after page of commentary you've elucidated thus far. Departments investigate internally and decide whether or not an officer's actions were criminal in nature or not criminal. They may arrive to a decision that while not explicitly criminal, they may still feel the need to fire that employee. But make no mistake that all shootings go far beyond the department or even the District Attorney's Office. Shootings are scrutinized by civilian review boards. Officers can be indicted on charges. The departments can be sued civilly. The officer themselves can be sued civilly. And it can and does go to a Grand Jury if there's even a hint of impropriety.This isn't "The Shield," Percy... this is how it works in the real world, not your fictionalized, far-removed Hollywood version of reality. Those officers in the videos are rank and file police. Patrol officers, which is the lifeblood of every single department and are the one's on the front lines are the one's who need them more than anyone else because its they statistically encounter the highest frequency of deadly force scenarios. Says you... the guy who doesn't even know the measure deadly force shootings are based upon. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

So in regards to Rolling Stone's objections, I read the objection that they took against SPD formulating the opinion that Clark was suicidal. SPD offered that Clark intentionally held his cellphone in a manner purposefully intended to mimic a handgun and stood in an isosceles shooting stance. Rolling Stone said there was little to insinuate that Clark behaving irrationally. Also there was the assertion that you also made which is cops investigating cops.From the DA report:

quote:

---

The iPhone was sent to Cellebrite, a company that specializes in data extraction, transfer, and analysis of cellular phones and mobile devices, so it could be unlocked and downloaded. The contents of the phone provided by Cellebrite were forensically analyzed by SPD investigators. CAL DOJ investigators conducted an additional download of the phone itself. The redundant examination of the phone was done to ensure accuracy.

---

This is a third party vendor extracting the message exchanges from Clark's phone starting on page 34.Further down is a series of web searches where Clark looks up different ways to commit suicide, all because he is despondent over an argument with his girlfriend.Then you have the toxicology report which shows certain chemicals he ingested that he just so happened to take after searching the web for, such as, how much Oxy can kill you? How much Xanax can kill you. And if you think, oh, he just wants to make sure he's not going to overdose, then why does he additionally lookup Carbon Monoxide poisonings?And then of course there is the deliberate attempt to whitewash Clark and exlude all of his behaviors... as if he was just a guy senselessly standing in his backyard minding his own business. He just got done beating the fuck out of his girlfriend, breaking car windows, hopping from backyard to backyard, in an obvious attempt to get away from the police who were called on account of his actions.So, Rolling Stone's reliance on incredulity, here are actual and measurable facts.

The Dayton Shooter was shot and killed by police within 30 seconds from the outset of the event. Had police been unarmed (except for SWAT teams), it would have taken said SWAT team over an hour to mobilize. Given the suspect had two magazine drums of 100 rounds, and managed to kill 8 or 9 in the span of less than 30 seconds, means the massacre would have been infinitely worse in terms of casualties. An event such as this is precisely why American law enforcement is armed and it is only because they were armed and ran towards the gunfire instead of away from it that the numbers were thankfully mitigated.

The same way you would for anything else... by analyzing on a case by case basis and tally up the amount of justified shootings with unjustified shootings.