3 ms·

I'm gonna buck the trend here and say that I think there's a lot of problems with how you're thinking. The main one, in my view, is that it's much the same as t

by ufmace 11y ago

I'm gonna buck the trend here and say that I think there's a lot of problems with how you're thinking. The main one, in my view, is that it's much the same as the viewpoint that the police can do no wrong and everything they do is excusable because the suspect must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be looking at him anyways. The problems we're dealing with here are complex, and trying to reduce them to either "the police are always lying and covering up laziness and incompetence" or "the police are always acting in good faith" will ineviatably lead to miscarriages of justice. I think this viewpoint comes from spending your time immersed in media that's so strongly biased that it's essentially propaganda. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you mostly get news from the type of sources that get linked on here, which are very quick on the trigger to print stories of alleged police misconduct, even if the evidence is rather shaky. These same sources virtually never print anything documenting the real-live effects of crime on victims, or stories of times when habitual violent offenders are difficult to bring to justice in practice, or descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be. I think that people of a social class that rarely interacts with the legal system in any way, either as victims or suspects, are disturbingly easy to sway to one side or the other with a steady diet of propaganda. Spend a few years selectively listening only to stories of how terrible criminals are and how difficult to bring to justice, and you're ready to throw the book at anyone the police suspect without regard for the facts on the ground. Spend a few years selectively listening only to stories of police misconduct and abuse, and you'll end up kinda like Mr. graycat here. To you, and anybody else feeling like this, I suggest, as an exercise to expand your mind and thinking, that you set yourself a project for a couple of months or so of deliberately ignoring stories of police misconduct, and perhaps even the sources that print them, and instead read only sources made up of or sympathetic to the police. Perhaps reddit /r/TalesFromTheSquadCar and /r/ProtectAndServe/. There's some other BBSes and news sources out there. Heck, here[1] is a good story from the police perspective of a violent stalker who terrorized his ex-girlfriend and repeatedly told the police every lie in the book in an attempt to get free and have another chance to hurt her. And another one that's becoming a pet peeve of mine: > A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair. What is this, Western movie justice or something? How does whether the suspect was armed have anything to do with whether his death was justified? This is terrible from both sides. A suspect who does not have a weapon is perfectly capable of being a legitimate threat to the life of a police officer. Many unarmed suspects have stolen firearms from police officers and proceeded to kill them with them. Or with vehicles, other weapons, or their bare hands. Many unarmed suspects have been legitimately shot dead while trying to steal firearms from police officers. How would you recommend dealing with them? On the other hand, we do have the Second Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm with a permit in most of the country. The fact that somebody possesses a gun is not an automatic justification for killing them either. Maybe a little thing called intent is important? [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromTheSquadCar/comments/2tqi3e/officer_the_stalker/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromTheSquadCar/comments/2tqi3...

selimthegrim 11y ago
You should read his earlier post about being harassed by NYS police in Rockland/Dutchess counties in the late 1970s-early 80s
graycat 11y ago
> descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be. I agree. I hope and expect that such for such a criminal a good and honest conviction will be quite possible in our legal system. E.g., per capita, we have a lot of people in jail, too many on silly, nearly trivial, charges. There certainly should be enough room in the jails for the serious criminals. We need police -- no joke. I can easily respect the police because of the dangers they do face and if they are honest, actually "serve" the public, obey the Constitution, etc. But the police abuses are too common: E.g., apparently quite generally they can lie in court and get away with it; they can confiscate cash just because they want to (there's a consulting company that goes to police departments and teaches them how to do that); can hassle people based on trivialities as in the broken windows approach; can lock people up for months, in dangerous circumstances (that some of the jails are very dangerous places is a well known, long standing situation and not an isolated issue), before a trial; they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as in plea bargains (commonly public defenders say that that situation is wildly out of control and has been quite generally for decades); they have long standing practices such a "nickel ride" where they put someone in a van and drive around violently causing the person to bang against the sides of the van, and much more. Here I'm talking not isolated instances but wide spread practices. > How does whether the suspect was armed have anything to do with whether his death was justified? > A suspect who does not have a weapon is perfectly capable of being a legitimate threat to the life of a police officer. Sure. But the police have so many advantages in force that an unarmed person is quite generally at a huge disadvantage. So, when an officer shoots an unarmed person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it looks like the officer just took the easy way out: He very much didn't like the person or their attitude or behavior so just gave up and shot him. Sure, each case needs very careful, objective review. And, really, likely an officer who has shot one unarmed person will have to be very reluctant to do so again for some years. Still, there are well documented cases that are outrageous -- maybe they are too rare to form a pattern to be addressed, maybe not. > Many unarmed suspects have been legitimately shot dead while trying to steal firearms from police officers. How would you recommend dealing with them? Sure, if there is a real situation like that, the officer needs to use force. If the officer does get to shoot, say, not at point blank range, then the officer should shoot for a limb and wound enough to win the fight but not necessarily shoot to kill. > On the other hand, we do have the Second Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm with a permit in most of the country. The fact that somebody possesses a gun is not an automatic justification for killing them either. I know, and just by my saying "unarmed" I know I'm already giving up this Constitutional right. But the police keep saying, "I felt threatened." and find that that is justification enough to shoot to kill. Well, if the person had a gun, it's easier to believe the "threatened".

by ufmace 11y ago

selimthegrim 11y ago

You should read his earlier post about being harassed by NYS police in Rockland/Dutchess counties in the late 1970s-early 80s

graycat 11y ago

> descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be. I agree. I hope and expect that such for such a criminal a good and honest conviction will be quite possible in our legal system. E.g., per capita, we have a lot of people in jail, too many on silly, nearly trivial, charges. There certainly should be enough room in the jails for the serious criminals. We need police -- no joke. I can easily respect the police because of the dangers they do face and if they are honest, actually "serve" the public, obey the Constitution, etc. But the police abuses are too common: E.g., apparently quite generally they can lie in court and get away with it; they can confiscate cash just because they want to (there's a consulting company that goes to police departments and teaches them how to do that); can hassle people based on trivialities as in the broken windows approach; can lock people up for months, in dangerous circumstances (that some of the jails are very dangerous places is a well known, long standing situation and not an isolated issue), before a trial; they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as in plea bargains (commonly public defenders say that that situation is wildly out of control and has been quite generally for decades); they have long standing practices such a "nickel ride" where they put someone in a van and drive around violently causing the person to bang against the sides of the van, and much more. Here I'm talking not isolated instances but wide spread practices. > How does whether the suspect was armed have anything to do with whether his death was justified? > A suspect who does not have a weapon is perfectly capable of being a legitimate threat to the life of a police officer. Sure. But the police have so many advantages in force that an unarmed person is quite generally at a huge disadvantage. So, when an officer shoots an unarmed person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it looks like the officer just took the easy way out: He very much didn't like the person or their attitude or behavior so just gave up and shot him. Sure, each case needs very careful, objective review. And, really, likely an officer who has shot one unarmed person will have to be very reluctant to do so again for some years. Still, there are well documented cases that are outrageous -- maybe they are too rare to form a pattern to be addressed, maybe not. > Many unarmed suspects have been legitimately shot dead while trying to steal firearms from police officers. How would you recommend dealing with them? Sure, if there is a real situation like that, the officer needs to use force. If the officer does get to shoot, say, not at point blank range, then the officer should shoot for a limb and wound enough to win the fight but not necessarily shoot to kill. > On the other hand, we do have the Second Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm with a permit in most of the country. The fact that somebody possesses a gun is not an automatic justification for killing them either. I know, and just by my saying "unarmed" I know I'm already giving up this Constitutional right. But the police keep saying, "I felt threatened." and find that that is justification enough to shoot to kill. Well, if the person had a gun, it's easier to believe the "threatened".