Re: Use of force

I just have where and there linked in my brain for spelling purposes. They rhyme, they're often related in purpose, so they're stored adjacent to each other.
Where? There!
Where? There!
Deepbluediver wrote:I really don't know how else to reply to this- I highlighted my agreement with you last time in supersized letters; I don't know how you could possibly have missed it.
The video, which we've both seen, shows the cops talking with (or at least listening to) Eric Garner for more than a full minute before it cuts out and then comes back to record the actual arrest. Clearly there are things that occur that we don't see. Also, if you go back and watch the video, you can hear the police speaking to Eric Garner as they attempt to handcuff him. I'm having trouble making out what they are saying, but there is clearly dialogue going on there.
Nepene wrote:You still don't seem to be aware that I want them to say specific things to the suspect,
Deepbluediver wrote:Nepene wrote:You still don't seem to be aware that I want them to say specific things to the suspect,
I've heard you, I just don't think it's much of an answer- it sounds like you want police to follow a specific script, like they're tech-support* or something.[/size]
And... well, let's just say I'm hoping that nobody is going to respond to my disagreeing with them by accusing me of being about to threaten to rape their children.
crayzz wrote:And... well, let's just say I'm hoping that nobody is going to respond to my disagreeing with them by accusing me of being about to threaten to rape their children.
Not likely to happen.
Archone wrote:All of us are supposed to have the civic duty to "raise a hue and a cry" in the event that we see a crime in progress. If we see someone being attacked, or a burglary, it is our civic duty to say "I just noticed you committing a crime, and I am detaining you so that you can be subjected to the legal process!" A police officer is paid to do that on a professional level. Literally, to wander around trying to notice crimes in progress. The traffic cop who waits to see someone speeding or running a red light? "I just noticed you committing a crime!" The patrolman responding to a 9-1-1 call? Even detective work is simply following leads and putting together pieces of the puzzle, until finally a clear picture is presented that allows the detective to say "ahah! This is evidence that you committed a crime!"
They are not above the law they are sworn to uphold. They are not to be held to a different standard or absolved from responsibility.
Speaking as someone who is a 2nd amendment supporter and a trained martial artist (with teachers who believed unarmed combat was for when the bullets ran out): you are required to limit your use of force to the amount being offered.
If they're not using lethal force, you are not permitted to use lethal force. You are not supposed to draw your firearm, even to threaten, unless you are justified in killing. You are never to point your firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy. And you never, ever elevate the force level beyond what is being offered.
You don't need to use illegal and unauthorized choke holds
In the case of these recent conflicts... we're seeing cops with an actual hostility against the citizenry. Literally, the cops see non-police, ALL non-police, as a threat to them. And... that's not a good thing. Not at all.
The attack ON Eric Garner was "this NOT-A-COP is challenging our Authori-tee. He will respect our Authori-tee!"
The incident with Michael Brown? I mean... for crying out loud, even if he did try to take away a cop's gun, weapon retention is a BASIC element of firearms training. And again: one unarmed teenager, and several cops.
This isn't good policing. This is "people with badges are behaving like a criminal gang, and trying to justify it by proclaiming their belief that everyone who isn't wearing the badge is an outsider and therefore a potential threat."
Deepbluediver wrote:This seems like you are of the opinion that the only obligation of police is to clean up the mess after it occurs- that they have no responsibility and no authority to prevent a crime from happening. I think that most people would strongly disagree with you- they want police to be proactive in stopping crimes before people get hurt.
They are not above the law but they are most certainly held to a different standard, because their job requires them to do things that would be illegal for a normal citizen to do, such as assault (arresting a suspect), kidnapping and detainment (putting them in jail), invasion of privacy (wiretapping), breaking and entering (serving a warrant), etc. Cops aren't immune to over-reach, but in most situations we give them the benefit of doubt because they have a responsibility and training to respond to certain scenarios in a way that your average citizen does not.
If that's true, then you should know just how dangerous a single person has the potential to be, to both the police and to any bystander who might get dragged into the confrontation. The police act in a manner that doesn't allow for escalation in the first place, essentially preemptively stopping things before they go bad. IMO, this leads back to the first paragraph- you want police to react, I want them to prevent.
Again, the standards for a citizen practicing gun-safety while shooting targets and for police arresting an accused criminal are different. If the police waited to draw their guns until they where being fired upon, then it might already be to late.
It wasn't illegal. Against department policy, yes, but not state law. And one of the defining tenants of our legal system is that those in authority are not allowed to change the law the suite their desires simply out of political expediency.
The attack ON Eric Garner was "this NOT-A-COP is challenging our Authori-tee. He will respect our Authori-tee!"
Really? Because I thought it was an attempt to arrest someone with a long criminal history who had been reported by the local shopkeepers as breaking the law, and who refused to cooperate with police.
This isn't good policing. This is "people with badges are behaving like a criminal gang, and trying to justify it by proclaiming their belief that everyone who isn't wearing the badge is an outsider and therefore a potential threat."
Again, I'll point to the decades-long drop in violent crime, particularly in my own home-town of NYC, that seems to prove that aggressive policing tactics are very effective. Also, during the course of this discussion, I read at least one source that estimated about 70 million police-citizen interactions per year. This seems low- another estimate put it at 25 million in New York City alone. Some of the highest estimates of police-on-civilian shootings put them around 1,000 per year, or a ridiculously small fraction of the incidents as a whole.
To conclude, I do not support unlimited police authority; I am a borderline-libertarian with a healthy distaste for government and centralized authority. However since I am not a cop, I defer to the police and grand jury, who have the experience and have seen all the evidence, respectively, and not on the narrative provided to me by the media and by politicians with agendas.
I'm not going to defend every single incident of police brutality, but neither will I jump on the bandwagon of denouncing all cops and repealing the successful police tactics of the last several decades.