hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 14, 2015 20:30:52 GMT -5
How many executions by police must we witness before police apologists like Talos acknowledge that this country suffers from a crisis in police accountability?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2015 9:40:19 GMT -5
Someone please explain to me the objective ethical technicality for why it was okay for the police to torture that man to death.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 15, 2015 10:38:52 GMT -5
How many executions by police must we witness before police apologists like Talos acknowledge that this country suffers from a crisis in police accountability? Once again, you make generalizations about an entire group of people without any facts or evidence to support it. I am not an apologist, I selectively defend those I feel are being unfairly attacked. I have acknowledged a number of incidents where there was excessive use of force and challenged other incidents where the media unfairly claimed the force was excessive. As I've said repeatedly, each incident needs to be judged separately and fairly based solely on the Supreme Court case law standard. I also challenge the story being promoted by the media, certain politicians, and activists that police shootings are rising dramatically. The NYPD has been attacked more than just about any other department in the past couple years for use of force incidents. However, if you actually look at the statistics on NYPD use of deadly force you will see a much different picture. In 1971, NYPD officers fired 2510 shots in the line of duty. In 2007, they fired only 540 shots even though by that time there were many more officers on the streets and they carried semi-auto handguns with much higher magazine capacities than revolvers. www.wehaitians.com/a%20hail%20of%20bullets%20a%20heap%20of%20uncertainty.html
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2015 11:00:40 GMT -5
How many executions by police must we witness before police apologists like Talos acknowledge that this country suffers from a crisis in police accountability? Once again, you make generalizations about an entire group of people without any facts or evidence to support it. I am not an apologist, I selectively defend those I feel are being unfairly attacked. I have acknowledged a number of incidents where there was excessive use of force and challenged other incidents where the media unfairly claimed the force was excessive. As I've said repeatedly, each incident needs to be judged separately and fairly based solely on the Supreme Court case law standard. I also challenge the story being promoted by the media, certain politicians, and activists that police shootings are rising dramatically. The NYPD has been attacked more than just about any other department in the past couple years for use of force incidents. However, if you actually look at the statistics on NYPD use of deadly force you will see a much different picture. In 1971, NYPD officers fired 2510 shots in the line of duty. In 2007, they fired only 540 shots even though by that time there were many more officers on the streets and they carried semi-auto handguns with much higher magazine capacities than revolvers. www.wehaitians.com/a%20hail%20of%20bullets%20a%20heap%20of%20uncertainty.html But the counterargument is that basically your whole point is bulls**t. 1) The argument isn't police shootings are increasing, therefore we need to stop them. That's your made-up argument. The actual claim is that the amount of police shootings is unacceptably high. If you'd like to argue that the amount of police shootings is acceptable, feel free. But don't make up a non-argument that's easier to dismiss. 2) Your defense of people who have been unfairly attacked has almost solely relied on the claims of the officers doing the killing. Once they say they 'assessed' the situation or felt threatened, that's it. You have said multiple times that it isn't for us to substitute judgment, and there is no reason to not take what they're saying at face value. Which treats each of these incidents as an outlier, instead of part of a consistent pattern of violence and abuse. That's not an honest assessment, that's attempting to keep other people from debating the claims of the people who are doing the killing. 3) That is exactly being an apologist. You treat other people's arguments as if they are emotionally biased and unreasonable, then whenever you need to make an actual substantive point, you shift it to a version of the argument that nobody is actually making. 4) People seeking to have NYPD officers held responsible for their violence is not people "attacking" the NYPD. That's nonsense.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 15, 2015 11:02:34 GMT -5
You're putting words in my mouth; I never said police shouldn't assess a situation before acting. I just said you didn't like their assessment, but it doesn't mean they didn't assess it. I think the point you're missing is in these types of deadly force situations, you have less than a second to "assess" a situation. The officer assessed that the kid was a threat to him and decided the only choice was deadly force. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but I'm struggling with the idea that this was "unavoidable," which is why I'm making assumptions here. Are you saying above that police should not be responsible for the quality of their assessment? Or for their actions in creating or escalating a situation? It absolutely does. From what I can see in the video, but the kid didn't get the gun all the way out or point it at the officer. If you are thirty, forty yards away and behind a car, isn't the chance that you yourself are shot relatively low? Wouldn't that give you time to asses a situation? If you had been told it was a juvenile and might not be a real gun, don't those seconds matter? You've seen the video. Why are we talking about accounts? Are you sure you've seen the video? I don't assume that. But I also find it suspect when every police defender in these debates never acknowledge any room for improvement. They never see fault, even when an old man is getting head stomped for no reason. Feeling bad about something without trying to prevent it again feels hollow to me. Wait. What? Are we talking about the same case? He was a 12 year old playing with a toy gun. Yes, maybe a bit of a punk, pointing it at people, but from the video the one person he points it at on the sidewalk doesn't even speed up their pace, so they didn't feel very threatened. What do you think he did? I'm so confused here. But not enough to call references on new hires? Not enough to teach first aid? Not enough to admit wrongdoing even after its clear it is an abuse of power? There are cases much clearer than this, and the police department almost never admits fault. I'm glad. I'm not particularly looking to crucify law enforcement. What I'm looking for is law enforcement to prove to us as citizens that we can trust them again by improving processes and dealing with officers who violate people's rights. The problem with focusing on, for example, the Michael Brown case in Ferguson is ignoring the fact that if there wasn't a long history of at least perception of police abuse, then the police would have had the benefit of the doubt here. Things like body cams should be embraced. Then if Officer Loehmann really tried to contact Tamir Rice as he claims... we would see it. And if that video had shown Tamir Rice waving at gun at innocents or the police, people might feel differently about the case. I know. I am sincerely concerned with the basic precendent that has been established that if an officer claims to feel threatened (and his partner will ALWAYS back him up), there is little to keep police from shooting first and asking questions later. I know MOST cops would never do this, but police are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner and the current laws and levels of prosecution mean that they can be if they want to and take little risk. I am not saying most cops would ever do this or that many, if any, do it out of maliciousness. But the job requirement should entail an attempt to bring someone in peaceably in most situations, but there's little to protect due process if someone decides shooting is easier. Where is that line? I know it is supposed to be an average cop or whatever you referenced, but I don't think that's even being enforced. Here you goI, for one, would not mind paying more in taxes if it meant a better staffed, better equipped and better trained police force. I played with toy guns outside and while I don't remember threatening/pointing it at a stranger, I certainly probably pointed it in someone's general direction. I'm not sure the difference between me and Tamir Rice should end in death. Course, let's face it -- I was white and in the suburbs and of course, this was years ago before our obsession with guns led to a mass shooting a day. You said you've seen the video. You can see a lot in the video -- including much of what you seem to think is up in the air. I think there's a lot of cops who would have handled this a lot better and Tamir Rice would still be alive. I really hope that most cops wouldn't have killed him. You keep saying it's a toy gun, and but facts known after the incident aren't relevant to the use of force inquiry based on the Supreme Court case law. Look at the picture of the gun the kid had (http://static1.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2132916.1425158245!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/cleveland-police-shoot-boy.jpg); does that look like a toy gun to you? It certainly looks real, even when examining close up at your leisure. How about for a police officer responding who has a split second to look at that gun and decide what to do?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2015 11:13:51 GMT -5
"aren't relevant to the use of force inquiry based on the Supreme Court case law" - Discussion of whether the police are out of control in society isn't constrained by Supreme Court precedent. They're generally behind the times in the whole 'civil rights' thing.
"does that look like a toy gun to you?" - The call the officers got said that someone was pointing a gun. They didn't approach thinking it was a toy gun and get surprised that it then looked real. Their behavior was wrong whether or not they believed it was real.
"how about for a police officer responding who has a split second to look at that gun and decide what to do?" - Well, did the officer unnecessarily create the scenario that only gives them a split second to decide what to do? You don't get to negligently create a dangerous situation and then be absolved of all responsibility because you were in a dangerous situation.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 15, 2015 16:48:06 GMT -5
Once again, you make generalizations about an entire group of people without any facts or evidence to support it. I am not an apologist, I selectively defend those I feel are being unfairly attacked. I have acknowledged a number of incidents where there was excessive use of force and challenged other incidents where the media unfairly claimed the force was excessive. As I've said repeatedly, each incident needs to be judged separately and fairly based solely on the Supreme Court case law standard. I also challenge the story being promoted by the media, certain politicians, and activists that police shootings are rising dramatically. The NYPD has been attacked more than just about any other department in the past couple years for use of force incidents. However, if you actually look at the statistics on NYPD use of deadly force you will see a much different picture. In 1971, NYPD officers fired 2510 shots in the line of duty. In 2007, they fired only 540 shots even though by that time there were many more officers on the streets and they carried semi-auto handguns with much higher magazine capacities than revolvers. www.wehaitians.com/a%20hail%20of%20bullets%20a%20heap%20of%20uncertainty.html But the counterargument is that basically your whole point is bulls**t. 1) The argument isn't police shootings are increasing, therefore we need to stop them. That's your made-up argument. The actual claim is that the amount of police shootings is unacceptably high. If you'd like to argue that the amount of police shootings is acceptable, feel free. But don't make up a non-argument that's easier to dismiss. 2) Your defense of people who have been unfairly attacked has almost solely relied on the claims of the officers doing the killing. Once they say they 'assessed' the situation or felt threatened, that's it. You have said multiple times that it isn't for us to substitute judgment, and there is no reason to not take what they're saying at face value. Which treats each of these incidents as an outlier, instead of part of a consistent pattern of violence and abuse. That's not an honest assessment, that's attempting to keep other people from debating the claims of the people who are doing the killing. 3) That is exactly being an apologist. You treat other people's arguments as if they are emotionally biased and unreasonable, then whenever you need to make an actual substantive point, you shift it to a version of the argument that nobody is actually making. 4) People seeking to have NYPD officers held responsible for their violence is not people "attacking" the NYPD. That's nonsense. 1) You may not have said police shootings are increasing, but media/politicians/activists and posters on this board have frequently used the word "epidemic" to describe police shootings, while suggesting it is happening with increasing frequency. I was simply using stats to show that police shootings are not increasing, but the media coverage of them is increasing. Personally, I feel no amount of shootings, no matter who is shot, is acceptable. 2) No, that's not true. The best piece of evidence in support of the Cleveland officer is the picture of the pellet gun. Even someone with a ton of experience with firearms would think that was real gun at first sight. The video shows the kid approaching the officer as he gets out of the car, but unfortunately even though I've watched it many times the video is too grainy to see if the gun is visible or he reaches for it. The Cleveland DA's office should have the technical ability to enhance the video and corroborate the officer's statements about the gun being displayed and him reaching for it. And no, I've never said an officer's assessment is always correct; only when it is compliant with the Supreme Court case law is it deemed correct. As I've said before, the NYPD officer who used the chokehold was not compliant with the case law because that use of force was not reasonable under those particular circumstances. All I've ever said is each incident has to be examined separately under the objective reasonableness standard in order to be judged appropriate or not. If you want to use a different standard to judge these incidents that's perfectly fine, but you'll going to be disappointed in the court case outcomes. 3) Disagree completely. A police apologist would defend law enforcement in every case, regardless of the circumstances. I've made it abundantly clear that I don't do that and judge each incident separately. In some cases I side with police, and some I don't. Some people are clearly "emotionally biased and unreasonable" when they argue this issue when they simply resort to childish name calling and can't actually provide any facts, case law, or alternatives. Look at SF, I disagree with most everything he says but I respect that he picks specific points to debate and then provides alternatives for how he feels officers should have acted or been trained. I don't think he's unreasonable, it's just that based on my training and experience I completely disagree. 4) I can't tell you how many pundits have "attacked" NYPD in the past year for alleged increasingly violent police encounters, when the stats show their use of deadly force has dramatically decreased in the past 40 years. So, if you were the Cleveland officer how would you have handled this situation?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2015 17:19:18 GMT -5
1) Okay so your point is that other people are using the word epidemic, and that implies an increase, and therefore its fair to substitute those vague assertions for what people are actually saying.
2) Come on now, how many times are you going to ignore the point that so many people have directly made to you. Even if the gun was real, the officers' response to the situation was entirely inappropriate. On what planet do you just roll up like that on someone who you believe is armed?
I'm also really not a big fan of people demanding that opinions must conform to the legal precedent at the time. It just makes it easier for you to, as you consistently have been, dismiss the legitimate points of other people because it isn't what the Supreme Court determined in a similar case. Further, there is also a fair argument that no, their actions did NOT conform even to that standard. You can't examine their behavior when it suits you, and hide behind a government review of government abuse when it doesn't.
3) I don't think being a police apologist requires literally defending them in every case. I think it involves efforts like using straw man arguments (the 'increasing' nonsense you're so fond of bringing up), telling people their views on police violence must conform to the standard set by the Supreme Court to have any sort of validity, and pivoting and using emotionally loaded arguments while accusing other people of doing the same.
4) And? That must be so hard for them, because they're so used to getting away with abusing and killing people. You're basically making the pre Civil Rights Act argument that racism isn't increasing, therefore it's dishonest to treat it like a serious issue. Maybe the real issue is that we shouldn't have anything remotely close to the type of violence we have now, but because we come from an inherently violent and racist society, it just takes us a long time to catch up to the way things should be. It's just such b.s. to keep hiding behind the lack of 'increasing' violence - it is exactly being an apologist for the abuses.
Instead of answering that question, I'd like to just give it back to you. Because the implication is clearly that their actions were the reasonable ones to take, so I ask you, would you have killed the kid?
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 15, 2015 17:29:55 GMT -5
"aren't relevant to the use of force inquiry based on the Supreme Court case law" - Discussion of whether the police are out of control in society isn't constrained by Supreme Court precedent. They're generally behind the times in the whole 'civil rights' thing. "does that look like a toy gun to you?" - The call the officers got said that someone was pointing a gun. They didn't approach thinking it was a toy gun and get surprised that it then looked real. Their behavior was wrong whether or not they believed it was real. "how about for a police officer responding who has a split second to look at that gun and decide what to do?" - Well, did the officer unnecessarily create the scenario that only gives them a split second to decide what to do? You don't get to negligently create a dangerous situation and then be absolved of all responsibility because you were in a dangerous situation. You're putting words in my mouth; I never said society can't discuss these issues, but when discussing the legality of a particular police use of force the Supreme Court precedent is the law of the land and the basis for any legal discussion. So if you think that case law is "behind the times," how would you change that? First of all, the officer who shot him wasn't the one driving. Even though I if had been the driver I would have stopped farther away, it doesn't really affect the legality of the use of force of the other officer. The legality of this officer's use of force will be judged on whether his reaction to the kid's behavior was reasonable under the circumstances and only considering the information he had at the time. You can certainly debate the approach of the vehicle, but I'm not sure how you can suggest them parking close to the suspect means any use of force is excessive. It's very simple, if a suspect has a gun displayed and starts to reach for it while approaching an officer, then deadly force is legal regardless of how tragic it may be. You don't have to wait until someone actually points a gun in your face before you can use force...otherwise you'd be dead before you could even react. And that is the law for both police and private citizens. Would you argue with that too?
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 15, 2015 18:07:12 GMT -5
1) Okay so your point is that other people are using the word epidemic, and that implies an increase, and therefore its fair to substitute those vague assertions for what people are actually saying. 2) Come on now, how many times are you going to ignore the point that so many people have directly made to you. Even if the gun was real, the officers' response to the situation was entirely inappropriate. On what planet do you just roll up like that on someone who you believe is armed? I'm also really not a big fan of people demanding that opinions must conform to the legal precedent at the time. It just makes it easier for you to, as you consistently have been, dismiss the legitimate points of other people because it isn't what the Supreme Court determined in a similar case. Further, there is also a fair argument that no, their actions did NOT conform even to that standard. You can't examine their behavior when it suits you, and hide behind a government review of government abuse when it doesn't. 3) I don't think being a police apologist requires literally defending them in every case. I think it involves efforts like using straw man arguments (the 'increasing' nonsense you're so fond of bringing up), telling people their views on police violence must conform to the standard set by the Supreme Court to have any sort of validity, and pivoting and using emotionally loaded arguments while accusing other people of doing the same. 4) And? That must be so hard for them, because they're so used to getting away with abusing and killing people. You're basically making the pre Civil Rights Act argument that racism isn't increasing, therefore it's dishonest to treat it like a serious issue. Maybe the real issue is that we shouldn't have anything remotely close to the type of violence we have now, but because we come from an inherently violent and racist society, it just takes us a long time to catch up to the way things should be. It's just such b.s. to keep hiding behind the lack of 'increasing' violence - it is exactly being an apologist for the abuses. Instead of answering that question, I'd like to just give it back to you. Because the implication is clearly that their actions were the reasonable ones to take, so I ask you, would you have killed the kid? "They're so used to getting away with abusing and killing people"?? And you're accusing me of using emotionally loaded arguments... Who are "they"? NYPD or all police officers? You're going to stereotype an entire group of people based on the actions of a few? There are certainly bad actors in every department, but to generalize that "they" are abusing and killing people is intellectually dishonest. If you don't understand that abuses are being committed by only a small minority of law enforcement officers, then I don't know how it's even possible for the two of us to debate this issue. Any abuse of power or excessive force is unacceptable and should be addressed. You may not believe this, but I applaud any corrupt or abusive cop who is removed their position. But just like any institution created by human beings and populated by humans, it's going to be imperfect and in need of improvement. It's completely unrealistic for 1,000,000 human beings (rough number of law enforcement in the US) to make correct decisions 100% of the time. That's no excuse, it's just reality. From my personal experience, and the stats I've seen, the use of deadly force as well as excessive force has greatly diminished over years. That of course doesn't mean we should ignore the issue or shouldn't strive for continued improvement, but I think lends perspective to the issue. Of course this is an important issue, and of course it should be discussed. But as you say, this is an extremely violent society, and believe or not there are many extremely violent criminals who unfortunately can only be apprehended through use of force. Do you really think it's possible in this country to completely eliminate any instance where police need to use force? It's interesting that you compare this to the racism of the pre-civil rights act era. The racists of that era unfairly stereotyped people based on their skin color, but now you are unfairly stereotyping an entire group of people based simply on their choice of profession. It's completely ridiculous and offensive for you to claim I'm an "apologist for the abuses" when I've made it clear many times that I won't defend excessive uses of force. What "abuses" have I defended? As I've said before, if the kid had the gun displayed and started to reach for it then deadly force would be used by anyone with any level of law enforcement training and experience. Since you didn't answer the question, am I to assume you would have waited until he actually pulled out the gun?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2015 18:27:55 GMT -5
Lol you're not a police apologist, you're just equating criticism of police as being similar to civil war era criticism of black people. Last iI checked police officer isn't exactly an immutable trait. That doesn't sound like an apologist for police violence at all...
Yes, police in America, including the NYPD, are used to getting away with corruption and abuse, including homicide. I can understand you not appreciating my blunt phrasing, but save the faux-outrage. Because a huge part of what we're dealing with stems from police lamenting the loss of their ability to act with total impunity.
And the rotten apples argument is as original as it is accurate. Police cover up police misconduct. As evidenced by the recent $600,000 verdict against the NYPD, they are even willing to lie to destroy the lives of any of their own who dare break rank and report abuse. Sorry that acknowledging reality gives you the vapors.
And he's, I stand by you being an apologist for the abuses. You have made excuses for indefensible actions throughout this entire thread, and the fact that you once in a while write that you're against 'real' abused doesn't somehow balance it out.
If you actually were coming from that perspective, you wouldn't be so outraged at the idea that the police have historically been corrupt and violent. That's not a controversial statement. It's also not just your view, people can have whatever view - it's your total intellectual dishonesty in the conversation. For example, your final question. What do you mean until he actually pulled out the gun?
If you don't understand that the police have the ability to control a situation so that there is space between 'roll up hard and shoot on sight' and 'nothing' you probably shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 18, 2015 12:09:26 GMT -5
Lol you're not a police apologist, you're just equating criticism of police as being similar to civil war era criticism of black people. Last iI checked police officer isn't exactly an immutable trait. That doesn't sound like an apologist for police violence at all... Yes, police in America, including the NYPD, are used to getting away with corruption and abuse, including homicide. I can understand you not appreciating my blunt phrasing, but save the faux-outrage. Because a huge part of what we're dealing with stems from police lamenting the loss of their ability to act with total impunity. And the rotten apples argument is as original as it is accurate. Police cover up police misconduct. As evidenced by the recent $600,000 verdict against the NYPD, they are even willing to lie to destroy the lives of any of their own who dare break rank and report abuse. Sorry that acknowledging reality gives you the vapors. And he's, I stand by you being an apologist for the abuses. You have made excuses for indefensible actions throughout this entire thread, and the fact that you once in a while write that you're against 'real' abused doesn't somehow balance it out. If you actually were coming from that perspective, you wouldn't be so outraged at the idea that the police have historically been corrupt and violent. That's not a controversial statement. It's also not just your view, people can have whatever view - it's your total intellectual dishonesty in the conversation. For example, your final question. What do you mean until he actually pulled out the gun? If you don't understand that the police have the ability to control a situation so that there is space between 'roll up hard and shoot on sight' and 'nothing' you probably shouldn't be commenting on the subject. Once again, your comments are full of over-generalizations of an entire profession. You impugn an entire profession for the actions of a few without any actual evidence or statistics. If you can't understand how that's intellectually dishonest I don't know what to tell you. Of course there are examples of misconduct or excessive force, and I acknowledge those when the evidence is clear. But if you expect any human institution made up of over 1,000,000 people to be accurate 100% of the time without ever making any mistakes, you live in a fantasy land. I cite case law to show what is legal and what is not, but you feel this is irrelevant. I cite statistics to show police use of deadly force has dramatically decreased over the years, and you say that is irrelevant. I have talked about my training and personal experiences, but you feel that is irrelevant too. So what is relevant from your perspective? You making over-generalizations; you making emotional pleas and trying to shout down someone who you disagree with? You telling officers what to do in life and death situations when you obviously don't have any training or experience in that area? In two decades, I have never personally been a part of or witnessed a use of deadly force. But I have certainly had suspects try to use that level of force with me. I have been a part of or witnessed literally thousands of interactions between federal/state/local law enforcement officers and suspects, and in only a handful of those cases have even less lethal weapons been used. In 99% of these interactions, verbal commands and the ability to de-escalate has precluded the need to use any level of force. I and my colleagues have been subjected to unprovoked threats, racist insults, and even threats to kill our families, without even responding. The reason I mention all this is to demonstrate why it is frustrating to hear the media and people like you generalize about an entire profession based on the actions of a few. I have worked in the private and public sectors, as well as for federal law enforcement agencies and federal civilian agencies. The vast majority of the law enforcement officers I have worked with are by far the most brave, unselfish, honorable, hard working people I've ever worked with, and who would have no problem giving their life to save that of another. Can the field of law enforcement improve in the use of force? Absolutely. Should they dedicate time and resources to improving in this area? Absolutely. But you don't seem to understand that it's a two way street. In the overwhelming majority of incidents, police use of force is entirely dependent on the suspect's behavior. And yes, I'm sure you can cite some incidents where that wasn't the case, but a few cases can't be used to indict an entire profession. Even though you don't believe it, I want the bad apples gone more than anyone. They should be held accountable for their actions; plus it makes everyone else's job more difficult and dangerous. But we also need to take more seriously assaults against law enforcement officers. Most of those cases end up being misdemeanors with no jail time. If there are no serious consequences for assaulting a cop, it only encourages more assaults and will escalate the use of force by both sides. You seem to like comparisons, so here's another: let's look at another profession (medical doctor) where decisions being made can mean the difference between life and death. An estimated 325,000 people die every year due to negligent malpractice (http://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals). According to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, an average of 685 people die every year due to police use of deadly force (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4943). And out of those 685 killed by police, the majority were judged to be a justified use of deadly force, while all 325,000 killed by negligent doctors were judged to be preventable. And before you say it, no I'm not saying any amount of excessive force is acceptable and we need to continue to take steps to eliminate it. However, the actual evidence lends a little perspective to the scope of the problem...regardless of what the demagogues may say.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 18, 2015 20:22:36 GMT -5
How many executions by police must we witness before police apologists like Talos acknowledge that this country suffers from a crisis in police accountability? Once again, you make generalizations about an entire group of people without any facts or evidence to support it. I am not an apologist, I selectively defend those I feel are being unfairly attacked. I have acknowledged a number of incidents where there was excessive use of force and challenged other incidents where the media unfairly claimed the force was excessive. As I've said repeatedly, each incident needs to be judged separately and fairly based solely on the Supreme Court case law standard. I also challenge the story being promoted by the media, certain politicians, and activists that police shootings are rising dramatically. The NYPD has been attacked more than just about any other department in the past couple years for use of force incidents. However, if you actually look at the statistics on NYPD use of deadly force you will see a much different picture. In 1971, NYPD officers fired 2510 shots in the line of duty. In 2007, they fired only 540 shots even though by that time there were many more officers on the streets and they carried semi-auto handguns with much higher magazine capacities than revolvers. www.wehaitians.com/a%20hail%20of%20bullets%20a%20heap%20of%20uncertainty.html That statistic is very misleading without context. NYC is a VASTLY different place now than it was in the '70s.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 18, 2015 21:15:56 GMT -5
What's sad, Talos, and intellectually dishonest, is that in all of your posts in which you defend the officers' actions by citing police policy and case law, you fail to acknowledge that such actions are unacceptable in our society. Any policy which allows police to legally murder citizens is wrong. A 12 yr old, whom the police erroneously thought was an adult, was executed by the cops in a state where, had he been an adult, it's legal to openly carry. Everything about that shooting was just wrong. Citing policy, statistics, and legal precedence doesn't change the fact that cops executing citizens under any circumstance is unacceptable. That child's death was avoidable. Tamir didn't stand a chance. Loehmann and his partner should be held accountable for jumping out guns blazing. Hopefully, the grand jury or the Justice Dep't, despite those two reports, will make that happen.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 19, 2015 9:36:26 GMT -5
EDIT - Bad ApplesIt’s frustrating that you seem genuinely incapable of having an honest discussion on this subject. “But if you expect any human institution made up of over 1,000,000 people to be accurate 100% of the time without ever making any mistakes, you live in a fantasy land.” – Glad to see you were able to create a fantasy demand to argue against. “I cite case law to show what is legal and what is not, but you feel this is irrelevant. “ – No, the issue is that case law is not dispositive to a discussion. Another made up point. “ I cite statistics to show police use of deadly force has dramatically decreased over the years, and you say that is irrelevant.” – Another made up point. Again, this isn’t a debate about the increase in police violence – it’s about the unacceptable CURRENT levels of police violence. “ I have talked about my training and personal experiences, but you feel that is irrelevant too." – ? "You making over-generalizations; you making emotional pleas and trying to shout down someone who you disagree with?" – What are the overgeneralizations? That police in America are too violent? “You telling officers what to do in life and death situations when you obviously don't have any training or experience in that area?” – Hey here’s why a lot of people dislike police. You aren’t shielded from criticism. You don’t need to be a police officer to criticize police officers. You don’t need to be a police officer to criticize police shooting a twelve year old boy. You don’t need to be a surgeon to think a doctor who left a sponge in a patient messed up. “In two decades, I have never personally been a part of or witnessed a use of deadly force.” – Okay? “The reason I mention all this is to demonstrate why it is frustrating to hear the media and people like you generalize about an entire profession based on the actions of a few.” – No, the reason you mention those things is to demonstrate that people who aren’t police officers don’t have the right to criticize police officers. I’ve been punched in the face, dragged to the ground, and cuffed by police who thought I was someone else outside of a bar. They let me go and told me I was lucky they didn’t bring me in for lack of cooperation. Am I allowed to criticize the police? I’ve seen violence multiple times with my own eyes, and consulted with victims of police violence. I’ve watched police officers lie to face while making sworn statements. Can I criticize that? Criminals are violent. This isn’t an issue of choosing to support criminals or police. Talking about how bad criminals are is a joke point to make in a discussion about police violence. It’s another attempt to insulate yourselves from criticism. I don’t think every police officer is bad, or violent, or corrupt, or anything. I think the vast majority of them are not. The institutions themselves are the problem. Good cops can’t be good cops when they cover for bad cops. End of story. “The vast majority of the law enforcement officers I have worked with are by far the most brave, unselfish, honorable, hard working people I've ever worked with, and who would have no problem giving their life to save that of another.” – That’s a great thing. I believe you. It also doesn’t excuse the police that aren’t that way and the ‘good’ police who cover up for them by looking the other way. “But you don't seem to understand that it's a two way street." –No, it’s NOT a two way street. This isn’t a discussion about police use of force toeing the line between excessive and required. This is about black sites in Chicago. Mass arrests in NYC. Planting evidence. Killing unarmed people. Throwing a fellow NYPD officer in an insane asylum for trying to be a whistleblower. Constantly, constantly, constantly beating the crap out of young black men. The types of abuses that are in no way based on going too far in a difficult situation. “Even though you don't believe it, I want the bad apples gone more than anyone. They should be held accountable for their actions; plus it makes everyone else's job more difficult and dangerous.” – If you don’t think the two officers who killed Tamir Rice are bad apples then this is sort of a moot point. “But we also need to take more seriously assaults against law enforcement officers.” – Yes, the real victims here. “Most of those cases end up being misdemeanors with no jail time. If there are no serious consequences for assaulting a cop, it only encourages more assaults and will escalate the use of force by both sides.” – Well yeah sure as long as you’re just making stuff up let’s turn cops into the actual victims in this debate! “According to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, an average of 685 people die every year due to police use of deadly force." – Congratulations on finding a misleading statistic. Considering that it’s a huge issue today that we have no reliable measurement of police killings (because police refuse to cooperate) and that most independent tallies have it over 1000 last year – well, you get it. What, the hell, does malpractice have to do with this? What is with the need to constantly point the finger at literally anything besides police violence and killing? Should abusive killings be held to the same standard as negligent action? Are my points somehow invalid because I’m not bringing up unrelated things with bigger numbers? What a joke. Your attitude is the problem. Police abuse is acknowledged in a vague, theoretical way, and then there’s a polemic against anyone who isn’t a police officer who has a problem with police abuse. You don’t talk about the issue in an honest way. Your token acknowledgments about the problem are so far hidden behind your persecution complex that it’s hard to take them seriously. Excuses, equivocations, attacks. Police violence in America is out of control. I don’t care that it is shrinking from what you guys were able to get away with back in the day. I don’t care that criminals are also bad people. I don’t care that your friends are heroes. I think it’s telling that you dismiss criticism by non-police. Most police officers I know do the same. “However, the actual evidence lends a little perspective to the scope of the problem...regardless of what the demagogues may say.” -Actually I’d have to agree with you there. You provided “perspective” by comparing the number of people killed by police (using a misleading number) to a higher number killed by a completely unrelated thing. What you consider to be “perspective” is itself revealing. It’s disheartening to know that we won’t have real reform until people like you chill out on the persecution complex.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 20, 2015 14:55:02 GMT -5
Police misconduct comes in all shapes and sizes. No racial overtones or use of firearms are needed. "The suit revealed that the Dover Police Department had a policy to detain citizens even when an officer has no clear or reasonable suspicion that the individual being detained has committed a crime." This sounds reasonable. But wait, it gets better: "The law enforcement personnel on scene even made attempts to cover up their misconduct; they failed to document the event, they failed to file use of force reports, they failed to give medical treatment to the taser victims, and they failed to maintain data on the taser that showed how many times it was fired." Arkansas Family Tasered and Beaten While Walking Dog
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Oct 22, 2015 16:12:07 GMT -5
EDIT - Bad ApplesIt’s frustrating that you seem genuinely incapable of having an honest discussion on this subject. “But if you expect any human institution made up of over 1,000,000 people to be accurate 100% of the time without ever making any mistakes, you live in a fantasy land.” – Glad to see you were able to create a fantasy demand to argue against. “I cite case law to show what is legal and what is not, but you feel this is irrelevant. “ – No, the issue is that case law is not dispositive to a discussion. Another made up point. “ I cite statistics to show police use of deadly force has dramatically decreased over the years, and you say that is irrelevant.” – Another made up point. Again, this isn’t a debate about the increase in police violence – it’s about the unacceptable CURRENT levels of police violence. “ I have talked about my training and personal experiences, but you feel that is irrelevant too." – ? "You making over-generalizations; you making emotional pleas and trying to shout down someone who you disagree with?" – What are the overgeneralizations? That police in America are too violent? “You telling officers what to do in life and death situations when you obviously don't have any training or experience in that area?” – Hey here’s why a lot of people dislike police. You aren’t shielded from criticism. You don’t need to be a police officer to criticize police officers. You don’t need to be a police officer to criticize police shooting a twelve year old boy. You don’t need to be a surgeon to think a doctor who left a sponge in a patient messed up. “In two decades, I have never personally been a part of or witnessed a use of deadly force.” – Okay? “The reason I mention all this is to demonstrate why it is frustrating to hear the media and people like you generalize about an entire profession based on the actions of a few.” – No, the reason you mention those things is to demonstrate that people who aren’t police officers don’t have the right to criticize police officers. I’ve been punched in the face, dragged to the ground, and cuffed by police who thought I was someone else outside of a bar. They let me go and told me I was lucky they didn’t bring me in for lack of cooperation. Am I allowed to criticize the police? I’ve seen violence multiple times with my own eyes, and consulted with victims of police violence. I’ve watched police officers lie to face while making sworn statements. Can I criticize that? Criminals are violent. This isn’t an issue of choosing to support criminals or police. Talking about how bad criminals are is a joke point to make in a discussion about police violence. It’s another attempt to insulate yourselves from criticism. I don’t think every police officer is bad, or violent, or corrupt, or anything. I think the vast majority of them are not. The institutions themselves are the problem. Good cops can’t be good cops when they cover for bad cops. End of story. “The vast majority of the law enforcement officers I have worked with are by far the most brave, unselfish, honorable, hard working people I've ever worked with, and who would have no problem giving their life to save that of another.” – That’s a great thing. I believe you. It also doesn’t excuse the police that aren’t that way and the ‘good’ police who cover up for them by looking the other way. “But you don't seem to understand that it's a two way street." –No, it’s NOT a two way street. This isn’t a discussion about police use of force toeing the line between excessive and required. This is about black sites in Chicago. Mass arrests in NYC. Planting evidence. Killing unarmed people. Throwing a fellow NYPD officer in an insane asylum for trying to be a whistleblower. Constantly, constantly, constantly beating the crap out of young black men. The types of abuses that are in no way based on going too far in a difficult situation. “Even though you don't believe it, I want the bad apples gone more than anyone. They should be held accountable for their actions; plus it makes everyone else's job more difficult and dangerous.” – If you don’t think the two officers who killed Tamir Rice are bad apples then this is sort of a moot point. “But we also need to take more seriously assaults against law enforcement officers.” – Yes, the real victims here. “Most of those cases end up being misdemeanors with no jail time. If there are no serious consequences for assaulting a cop, it only encourages more assaults and will escalate the use of force by both sides.” – Well yeah sure as long as you’re just making stuff up let’s turn cops into the actual victims in this debate! “According to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, an average of 685 people die every year due to police use of deadly force." – Congratulations on finding a misleading statistic. Considering that it’s a huge issue today that we have no reliable measurement of police killings (because police refuse to cooperate) and that most independent tallies have it over 1000 last year – well, you get it. What, the hell, does malpractice have to do with this? What is with the need to constantly point the finger at literally anything besides police violence and killing? Should abusive killings be held to the same standard as negligent action? Are my points somehow invalid because I’m not bringing up unrelated things with bigger numbers? What a joke. Your attitude is the problem. Police abuse is acknowledged in a vague, theoretical way, and then there’s a polemic against anyone who isn’t a police officer who has a problem with police abuse. You don’t talk about the issue in an honest way. Your token acknowledgments about the problem are so far hidden behind your persecution complex that it’s hard to take them seriously. Excuses, equivocations, attacks. Police violence in America is out of control. I don’t care that it is shrinking from what you guys were able to get away with back in the day. I don’t care that criminals are also bad people. I don’t care that your friends are heroes. I think it’s telling that you dismiss criticism by non-police. Most police officers I know do the same. “However, the actual evidence lends a little perspective to the scope of the problem...regardless of what the demagogues may say.” -Actually I’d have to agree with you there. You provided “perspective” by comparing the number of people killed by police (using a misleading number) to a higher number killed by a completely unrelated thing. What you consider to be “perspective” is itself revealing. It’s disheartening to know that we won’t have real reform until people like you chill out on the persecution complex. Ugh, I really should stop even coming to this board but you keep sucking me back in with your ridiculous comments and arguments. I'm not going to even respond to most of your generalizations and opinions because they're so absurd it's just a waste of time. Instead, I'm going to try to advance this discussion towards a positive way forward. I know that's not something a demagogue like you is normally able to do, so I won't expect much. However, these are some ways to improve the accuracy of the use of force by police, while decreasing injuries to both police and suspects: - leverage new technology for more effective less-lethal weapons - better use of force training - better pre-employment screening (perhaps mandated and funded by federal grants) - better pay for uniformed local police officers (generally, you get what you pay for) - Use of deadly force panels to judge incidents; panels are not inside that particular department but made up of former prosecutors, law enforcement, and use of force experts - Stiffer penalties for running or fighting with law enforcement officers; stiffer penalties for illegally carrying a firearm - Body cameras with audio (this will also probably take federal grants) Unfortunately, the way this debate is framed from the extremist cop-haters on one side and some in the law enforcement community who are unwilling to compromise on the other, makes it impossible to have a productive and honest discussion. You are so blinded with hatred of all cops that you are unwilling to even consider anything that doesn't support your preconceived notions. I'm not a uniformed local police officer, but I know and work with many of them throughout the country. Local police officers, whether you agree with it or not, are feeling unfairly attacked from the media and politicians. Unfortunately, many are now thinking twice about risking their life to go into dangerous neighborhoods or confront violent criminals (ex: Baltimore and Chicago). Their thinking is why should I risk my life to do something that I might be unfairly judged for? Even if I get in an incident and later judged that my actions were entirely legal and reasonable, my career is over. My life, and the lives of my family are in danger, and I did that all for just $40,000 a year? I've risked my life hundreds of times for complete strangers, and now my family and I have to live in hiding for the rest of our lives? I'm sure you won't have any sympathy or understanding for that mindset, but that is the reality. The end result of the anti-cop crusade is that fewer and fewer of the younger generation are going to be interested in being a uniformed police officer because of: the danger, the stress, constant abuse, constant scrutiny, and all for a very low salary (at least in most jurisdictions). As a result, the most qualified are going to pick different careers and local law enforcement is going to be left with even less qualified candidates than they had before. This won't be a problem in federal law enforcement, because the pay is much better, but this is already starting to be a problem with local departments. Many departments are already short-staffed, and are trying to fasttrack new recruits to get them on the streets. Unfortunately, this won't turn out well. New recruits need better screening and more training, not less. Once again, I'm not arguing that excessive force is acceptable or shouldn't be addressed. I'm arguing that your opinion on the scope of the problem is inaccurate as well as unproductive, and only promotes more distrust between local police and the communities they serve. I don't expect anything productive from your response, and I think I'm falling into that well-known definition of insanity by continuing to respond and expecting a constructive dialogue from someone like you. I'd rather just come to this board and discuss basketball, instead of argue with someone who stereotypes an entire segment of the population based on the actions of a few. Neither of us is changing their opinion, so I think there's probably only one thing we can both agree on: this discussion has certainly become a waste of time.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 22, 2015 16:37:40 GMT -5
Just...wow. Your entire post is gaslighting 101. You are an extremely nasty, manipulative individual.
|
|