Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
49 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,374 Year: 18,410/19,786 Month: 830/1,705 Week: 82/518 Day: 8/74 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 316 of 322 (863902)
10-02-2019 9:19 PM


The real issues here.
1

From 1854 to 2003, no white got the death penalty for killing a black in Texas. Up until 2016 (and possibly ever), no white ever got the death penalty for killing a black, in Florida. No whites got executed for killing blacks in Alabama from 1913-2016 in Alabama.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...anomaly-of-dylann-roof

2

This lady was on record (electronic messages to a friend) supporting a person who trained his dog to have a certain (unfriendly and alert) reaction to blacks. She essentially described herself as "racist" (the dog was said to be "racist").

THIS LADY IS A POLICE OFFICER!

3

This lady said, in electronic communication, she shoots "fast" so she dies "last". She was describing her police conduct.

(She must shoot fast when in the middle of an on-duty policing situation, if she shot a harmless and unarmed man point blank in the chest, while not in the heat of a job-related situation)

SOLUTIONS?

The most simple solution to the problem of racist cops shooting blacks is to only hire black officers IN THE FUTURE. One can grandfather clause existing white police-officers. But future white officers should be disqualified.

The issue of the "I was scared" problem is more difficult to pin down. We can easily see what an awful officer this lady was, NOW, but her fellow officers sure did fail to notice what they probably should have.

MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS:

A 10 year sentence for murder is odd in a state like Texas, but that was apparently was a majority-black jury decision.

This "murder" charge and conviction really was a no-brainer. Good job, Dallas, on that part.

What to do about racist police officers? I think there really needs to be some radical solutions, there.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-03-2019 12:21 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 319 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2019 9:50 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 317 of 322 (863912)
10-03-2019 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by LamarkNewAge
10-02-2019 9:19 PM


Re: The real issues here. (National Review article on Guyger)
quote:
The Corner

Law & the Courts

With the Guyger Verdict, a Texas Jury Chips Away at the Unwritten Law That Helps Bad Cops Go Free

By David French

October 1, 2019 3:02 PM

Earlier today, a Dallas jury convicted former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger of murder after she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and shot dead its rightful occupant — a young black man named Botham Jean. The verdict came in spite of an incredibly puzzling jury instruction permitting Guyger to argue that Texas’s “Castle Doctrine” could apply to her actions. Under the Castle Doctrine, the use of force is presumed reasonable if another person is “unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter your occupied home, car, or place of business.” Yet Guyger was the armed person unlawfully entering Jean’s home. He had the right to shoot Guyger. She had no right to shoot him.

The jury’s verdict is significant — and not just because justice was done in this dreadful case. It’s a small data point that some juries in some jurisdictions may well be rejecting a classic police defense that’s been used to help bad officers escape accountability for unjustified shootings. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction, the written law requires officers to show that they used deadly force based on a “reasonable” belief that the suspect presented a risk of inflicting deadly force or serious bodily harm. Yet in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, juries have followed a different, unwritten code — that virtually any expression of fear by a cop justifies a shooting. As I’ve argued before, clever defense lawyers twist the legal standard into a line of argument that goes something like this: The officer was afraid, and she can explain to you the reasons why she was afraid. Therefore, it was reasonable that she was afraid.

https://www.nationalreview.com/...hat-helps-bad-cops-go-free


Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-02-2019 9:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 318 of 322 (863916)
10-03-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Taq
10-01-2019 6:49 PM


Re: Police Murder 17-Year-Old
I'm leaning that way myself. Why does a cop need a gun for issuing a speeding ticket. If you walk up and the driver pulls a gun then turn around, run to your car, lock the door. Perhaps the police officer could have a gun in the car that can be used when someone keeps shooting at them when they are in the car. If the suspect speeds away, call it in and get the special units to chase them down.

At first I thought you were trolling, but I'm starting to lean towards a genuine delusion on your part. You live in a land of make believe with this kind of naiveté.

Cops don't need guns to issue traffic tickets, as it were. But traffic stops are among the most dangerous instances where violence is leveled against them. I'm sure in your mind you believe cops are ninjas and can either dodge or outrun bullets, but they can't. Nobody can. Not even a ninja, a Navy Seal, the fastest or most agile human that has ever lived, nor even the fastest animal that has ever lived can do that. Even if they could, police aren't equipped with armored vehicles that withstand even a .22 round, let alone a larger caliber round. But even if they could, do these magical, specialized units have godlike, omnipresent abilities where they can just kind of be everywhere simultaneously at the exact moment they're needed most? Because that's more or less how you've imagined this perfect, foolproof plan in your mind when it is in reality it so far removed from practicability that its laughable.

By the way SWAT officers only show up an hour after patrol officers (with guns) have contained a scene where there is 1. subject(s) that are armed and 2. are barricaded.

If that wasn't enough, you then said police could have guns in their vehicle, which everyone will now know to be the precedent... just wait for the cop to get up to your vehicle so that (s)he is now away from their weapon. A weapon that is not readily accessible is no weapon at all.

Cops don't need guns to issue citations, they need guns to be able to adequately defend themselves in instances where someone chooses to try to kill them or someone else. Those instances can literally happen at any given time. Do British police officers need a baton to write traffic citations? Or do they carry them to defend themselves against aggressors? Maybe they should leave them in the car because they don't need them during traffic stops.

Furthermore, police officers handle a very wide variety of calls. You associate police with doing little else than running traffic because that's what you happen to see, but in reality they handle a diverse and wide array of calls for service that you don't see... and perhaps if you did see what they actually do from day to day you might have a more forgiving appreciation for why standard practices are standard.

Right now, an officer will have his hand on the gun, ready to draw and fire at the slightest provocation, just for a speeding ticket. That makes no sense.

If it makes no sense, its because your nonsensical hypotheticals don't make sense. Name a single time where a police officer gunned down someone for speeding. Never happened. Here's how it actually goes: Officer initiates a traffic stop after having observed a traffic infraction -- driver or some passenger gets pissed off and makes furtive or overt movements that (s)he is trying to kill the officer. Officer responds to what has been presented to them. That's extremely disingenuous and is not the same as getting shot for speeding.

You're taking the reason for the stop as being the same as the reason for an officer involved shooting.

So, I would agree that it makes no sense... because you have no sense.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Taq, posted 10-01-2019 6:49 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 319 of 322 (863917)
10-03-2019 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by LamarkNewAge
10-02-2019 9:19 PM


Re: The real issues here.
From 1854 to 2003, no white got the death penalty for killing a black in Texas. Up until 2016 (and possibly ever), no white ever got the death penalty for killing a black, in Florida. No whites got executed for killing blacks in Alabama from 1913-2016 in Alabama.

Nobody gets a death sentence for murder... the only time they're eligible for the death penalty is for a Capital murder.

The most simple solution to the problem of racist cops shooting blacks is to only hire black officers IN THE FUTURE. One can grandfather clause existing white police-officers. But future white officers should be disqualified.

So your solution to racism is by adding more racism?

A 10 year sentence for murder is odd in a state like Texas, but that was apparently was a majority-black jury decision.

5-99 is what is lawfully proscribed in Texas for this level of offense. I think 25 years would have been more appropriate than 10. No wonder the black residents of Dallas' joy over a conviction was short-lived once they heard 10 years.

What to do about racist police officers? I think there really needs to be some radical solutions, there.

Good departments institute training that uncovers both explicit and implicit biases, which everyone is susceptible to on some level. Lets take your own as a fine example. Your assumption is that White + Police = Racist. In fact, so much so that you would actually disqualify white people from becoming police officers on the sole basis of their race.

If Amber Guyger had shot a white person in their own home, the fact that she is a police officer would have garnered some attention. It remains to be seen whether it would have garnered as much attention given the dynamic of white officer and innocent black resident.

Seems like you're implying that she was only scared enough to shoot a black guy but wouldn't have been scared enough to shoot a white guy. You've deduced this based on some racist text messages. Was Amber Guyger a racist? Quite possibly. Was Botham Jean killed solely on account of his race? Maybe? I think the bigger problem is that somebody with Guyger's mentality should have never been able to be a police officer. But my even bigger problem is your assertion that if you're white and if you're a police officer that it 100% certifies you as a racist... so much so that it should disqualify you from the profession. That is both remarkable and ironic.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-02-2019 9:19 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-04-2019 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 320 of 322 (863995)
10-04-2019 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Hyroglyphx
10-03-2019 9:50 AM


Re: The real issues here.
quote:
Nobody gets a death sentence for murder... the only time they're eligible for the death penalty is for a Capital murder.

But that is not true.

In Florida (a state with a population bigger than New York state), first degree murder does bring the death penalty.

But, no white has ever gotten the death penalty in the blood-hungry state of Florida IF THE VICTIM WAS BLACK.

This is a diverse state with a population larger than most countries.

Lots of white on white murders in Florida. Lots of black on black murders in Florida. Lots of black on white murders in Florida. Lots of white on black murders there.

Lots of death sentences in Florida.

It just so happens that Florida has never executed a white person for killing a black.

Why?

(We know why, and the attitudes of Florida aren't too different from the rest of the country)

quote:
Good departments institute training that uncovers both explicit and implicit biases, which everyone is susceptible to on some level. Lets take your own as a fine example. Your assumption is that White + Police = Racist. In fact, so much so that you would actually disqualify white people from becoming police officers on the sole basis of their race.

There has been a problem in the larger "white community" at-large.

This "problem" has caused too many black humans to loose their lives.

This problem has been noticed (very well-noted) in the black community.

This problem is a cancer upon the body of the nation.

This problem has caused many tens of millions to loose confidence in the larger population in the United States of America.

There is a problem with WHITE RACISM (and racial bias against black humans).

White racism (in all of its shades) is real.

It is a major problem.

Major problems require major solutions.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2019 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 321 of 322 (863998)
10-04-2019 11:59 PM


Studies show us that shootings (police or civilian) are viewed racially.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/...o-be-ruled-justifiable

quote:
FILED 5:30 a.m.
08.14.2017
ANALYSIS
Killings of Black Men by Whites are Far More Likely to be Ruled “Justifiable”
The disparity remains no matter the circumstances and has persisted for decades.
By DANIEL LATHROP & ANNA FLAGG

When a white person kills a black man in America, the killer often faces no legal consequences.

In one in six of these killings, there is no criminal sanction, according to a new Marshall Project examination of 400,000 homicides committed by civilians between 1980 and 2014. That rate is far higher than the one for homicides involving other combinations of races.

....

In almost 17 percent of cases when a black man was killed by a non-Hispanic white civilian over the last three decades, the killing was categorized as justifiable, which is the term used when a police officer or a civilian kills someone committing a crime or in self-defense. Overall, the police classify fewer than 2 percent of homicides committed by civilians as justifiable.

The disparity persists across different cities, different ages, different weapons and different relationships between killer and victim.

To understand the gaps, The Marshall Project obtained dozens of data sets from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and examined various combinations of killer and victim. Two types of “justifiable homicide” are noted: “felon killed by private citizen” or “felon killed by police officer.” (In a bit of circular logic, the person killed is presumptively classified as a felon, since the homicide could be justified only if a life was threatened, which is a crime.)

The data were processed to standardize key variables and exclude more than 200,000 cases that lacked essential information or were homicides committed by police. The resulting data detail the circumstances of each death; any weapons used; information on the killer’s and victim’s race, age, ethnicity and sex; and how police investigators classify each type of killing (“brawl due to the influence of alcohol”, “sniper attack” or “lover’s triangle”, for example).

Little large-scale research has examined the role of race in “justifiable” homicides that do not involve police. The data examined by The Marshall Project are more comprehensive and cover a longer time period than other research into the question, much of which has focused on controversial “Stand Your Ground” laws.

In the United States, the law of self-defense allows civilians to use deadly force in cases where they have a reasonable belief force is necessary to defend themselves or others. How that is construed varies from state to state, but the question often depends on what the killer believed when pulling the trigger.


This was about a third of the text article.

There are a lot of graphics to show the data from different cities.

Very informative.

It is a disturbing reality


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18868
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 322 of 322 (864562)
10-12-2019 9:32 PM


Another Wellness Check Gone Wrong
Today Tatiana Johnson, 28, was shot and killed in her bedroom by a Fort Worth police officer conducting a wellness check. The officer fired through the window after calling out, “Put your hands up. Show me your hands.” He said he perceived a threat. He’s been placed on administrative leave.

Of course Ms. Johnson was unarmed. She wasn’t even aware the police were outside or that anyone had called in a wellness check. Only to a criminal fleeing police would it be obvious that the police are shouting orders at you. To someone in their bedroom the sudden and unexpected shouted words would most likely be unintelligible.

This is actually two tragedies. Ms. Johnson is dead, and the officer will likely face trial and be found guilty of manslaughter and possibly murder.

Source: Fort Worth Officer Fatally Shot Woman Inside Her Home, Police Say

—Percy


    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019