27 ms·

For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection

197 points by leephillips 7y ago

stallmanite 7y ago
Just what we need more imbalance
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  In the country with the highest percentage of prison population. And the highest number of killings by police (per capita) by far.
ashtonkem 7y ago
It’s my understanding that qualified immunity was created by the courts; there is no law or constitutional clause that explicitly forms it. I’d say that Congress should pass a law to wind back qualified immunity, but I fear they’d just make it worse.
- afthonos 7y ago
  "Created by the courts" is what opponents of any doctrine say about it. The Supreme Court's view of it is probably quite different. :-) In other words, I think the only ways to get rid of qualified immunity are (1) to get SCOTUS to overrule their own quite recent precedent or (2) pass a constitutional amendment.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    We have an amendment, the 14th. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". If the law is interpreted as granting qualified immunity to police officers under certain circumstances then it should apply to anyone else who meets those same criteria. To carve out criteria that only applies to cops should run afoul of the 14th amendment.
    - abduhl 7y ago
      Qualified immunity is a privilege that flows from the sovereign, not from the individual rights of the police officer. Equal protection does not apply because qualified immunity isn’t a personal protection but rather a governmental protection necessary for the arms of the government (eg - its employees) to carry out their function without fear of litigation. So, it does apply to anyone who meets the same criteria: anyone who is a government employee carrying out their job functions.
      - ashtonkem 7y ago
        In principle this makes sense; you shouldn’t be able to harass the county clerk with lawsuits as they implement laws duly passed by state legislators. There are other mechanisms to challenge laws. The problem comes into play with lethal force, and how transparently thin the excuses tend to be. Qualified Immunity defenses hinge on there being a specific law and precedence that the cops must have known about before doing something illegal, a gross perversion of the principle that “ignorance of the law is no defense”. This leads to clearly unjust situations where cops get away with killing citizens or destroying their property, because there wasn’t sufficiently narrow case law to overcome qualified immunity.
        abduhl 7y ago
        I don’t disagree that qualified immunity has been extended way beyond where it was even arguably appropriate, but I was just explaining why invoking the 14th for its protections is not appropriate. I am anti-QI, by the way. Not just the current QI reading, but essentially all QI defenses.
        ashtonkem 7y ago
        Aside from really hating how QI currently works, I’m not anti-QI in principle; but in practice I suspect that what I’d like to see is legally unworkable. Basically I’d love to see QI reserved for low-discretion and non-lethal cases. So QI for a county clerk implementing the law as written, you should sue the state over that, but no QI for police officers who might shoot a citizen. The level of discretion and the consequences for each action should be a factor in whether or not QI applies, IMHO. It’s just not clear to me how that could be accomplished in the current legal framework.
- xxpor 7y ago
  Qualified immunity is the most egregious example of "judicial activism", yet the people who complain about it are the same people that support it. The difference is things like gay marriage are a lot more visible.
- avs733 7y ago
  it is a whole cloth invention of law.
  - greggyb 7y ago
    This is the tradition of common law, and is not unique to the US. The job of the courts is to discover law. Even in the case where a sovereign dictates a law (older form, in monarchies) or a legislative body writes a law (modern form, in many republics and democracies), it is the duty of the courts to interpret these laws, both in the written law's specific verbiage, and its application in the context of other legal decisions. It is effectively impossible to legislate every aspect of society. One solution is to empower the judiciary to create/discover law. I am not making a qualitative judgment here, merely observing that this is not an instance of malfeasance or overreach in any way.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I really don 't understand why media outlets lately try to damage the reading experience with all the weird scrolling stuff. They do excellent journalism only to make it barely readable. Does anybody find this stuff actually good?
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This case was gratuitous, I agree. But sometimes the animations can be extremely helpful in weaving in complicated data into a narrative. Think graphs that highlight the relevant lines, etc.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Graphs are fine but having to scroll for each paragraph while waiting for graphics to download makes no sense., I was about to stop reading until a little later it turned into a normal article.
- leephillips 7y ago
  I like it, when used with care. I think it works pretty well in this article, and it's been used to very good effect at the New York Times. The main problem is that I'm distracted from the content by wondering how they did certain things, how it might be adapted to other content, whether I would want to use it, etc.
- ballenf 7y ago
  I liked here. It feels more efficient when the illustrations or photos are not a parallel reading exercise. Where you're never quite sure when to read the photo caption or end up with it just repeating what you've already read in the body. You could do that without the weird scrolling stuff, but I thought it worked well here. I will resort to reader mode if it gets annoying. I do worry a little bit about archival challenges, however. Not sure that we'll be able to replicate the full experience as browsers continue to evolve and change.
- soledades 7y ago
  Personally I love it. Even when it doesn't work, I am happy to see the experimentation. Not everything has to fit my usual forms of consumption. For those who don't like it, a normal article is just a keyboard shortcut away...
_bxg1 7y ago
Beat cops don't need guns. The UK has proven that they can do their jobs without them. Taking them away would not only remove the possibility of inappropriate discharge, I'd bet it would reign in the subconscious power-tripping that so many officers succumb to. When you could shoot somebody and they can't shoot you I imagine you experience a sense of total dominance over them, rather than a working relationship as an officer of the peace.
- pinfisher 7y ago
  Beat cops are not going to want to go into some neighborhoods without protection.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Perhaps the CIA should supply them with crack so they can bargain for their lives.
  - whateveracct 7y ago
    You managed to get my dog's ears to perk up through my phone. Congrats!
  - pstuart 7y ago
    Understandably but that's often because of a feedback loop by their bad behavior. If those troubled neighborhoods collectively saw the cops as actually serving the community (rather than terrorizing it), they would likely be welcomed and safe.
    - alehul 7y ago
      Most of the resentment stems from how much crime is committed in these neighborhoods, which requires police presence, and how the penal system in the U.S. punishes rather than rehabilitating those found guilty. Also, the lack of cooperation in poorer neighborhoods is largely due to respect for, or fear of, the criminals. There's a lot more layers here - this 'shift' would require tons of slain officers, a lack of respect for the law, so on and so forth. While I agree officers should do their best to serve the community, disarming them in dangerous areas isn't necessary to accomplish it.
freepor 7y ago
On the one hand, cops shouldn’t get to kill unlawfully and say “I was doing my job.” On the other hand, if an Amazon engineer checks in a bug and AWS goes down and a hospital loses its medical records and people die, we hold Amazon liable, not the engineer.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Well yeah there is a difference between killing another human being in the first person vs indirectly through corporate processes.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  No one should be depending on an internet connection or external server to keep people alive and there is no way amazon would somehow be responsible for a nonsense design like this, if it ever did happen.
- yowlingcat 7y ago
  What should it tell you about the two systems if the former continues to happen often with no real improvements while the latter happens rarely if ever and is immediately rectified?
Someone1234 7y ago
Sir Robert Peel would be ashamed; this is in clear contradiction to principle 7: > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. The Peelian principles are akin to a "Policing Constitution." The closer you get to its ideals the higher quality your policing is, and by that standard US policing even outside of "abuse" falls well short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
- JanSolo 7y ago
  I had heard of Robert Peel, but not of his principles. Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. And I agree that US policing would really benefit from following some of his ideas. Specifically Principle 6.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    I imagine the Discworld series is pretty popular here, but for those who aren't super familiar with it, the character of Sam Vimes is a cop (and very much an honorable one) whose policing is based on Peelian principles. They even had a character named Keel in one of the books; the sort of historical reference Pratchett loved to include. https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Peelian policing is but one of the foundation influences on U.S. policing, introduced in northern metropolitan areas: Boston, New York City, and Chicago. The other major influence was the slave patrol. This is why there is such a strong overlap between the membership rosters of the KKK and police departments. As policing expanded, and the institutions intermingled, the former was corrupted by the latter. It is impossible to uphold #7 in an organization that implicitly divides "the public" into "citizens to be protected", "citizens to be ignored", and "savages". The only way we can get there from here is to completely dissolve municipal police departments, and rebuild them from scratch, without re-hiring anyone that has ever served as a cop, training them specifically to be wardens of the whole community, rather than employ the "everyone is trying to kill you" videos that they show the young cop-cadets to make them twitchy and paranoid whenever anyone has a non-visible hand or is within 7 yards of them.
darksaints 7y ago
The police culture in the United States, enabled by these absolutely absurd legal protections, is consistently the most embarrassing thing about our country. We're famous for our police corruption and brutality, to the point that the state departments of foreign countries have to warn their citizens of interactions with police while visiting the US. The portuguese-american community that I grew up in mostly consisted of people who fled the fascist authoritarianism of Antonio Salazar, with the promise of freedom and prosperity. They found the prosperity just fine, but lived here long enough to see America become even more authoritarian than the Portugal that they fled. It is interesting to me that many of them are leaving the prosperity behind to return to Portugal, as it is now more free than we are.
- dwater 7y ago
  Parts of the US government also know not to share certain information with law enforcement. "[FBI] policies have been crafted to take into account the active presence of domestic extremists in U.S. police departments." "White supremacists and other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies." https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-inve...
  - LB232323 7y ago
    I admire the work of the FBI against hate groups and extremists. However, one only needs to look at their work against BLM or the Civil Rights Movement to see that they are part of the same structure. Workers unifying across social divisions is the greatest threat to oppressing the people. It is the most powerful method we have of gaining material freedom and our most basic human dignities, regardless of ethnic identity. Some of our most deeply exploited white citizens are convinced that they have it better than others while they experience collapsing infrastructure, life on government benefits, prescription epidemics, growing government overreach, and erosion of their working rights. They also make up the heart of white supremacists and domestic extremists, while more fortunate liberal territories are convinced to despise and separate themselves from their fellow workers. In short, our nation is divided by hatred and the result is a populace that is easier to control, oppress, and economically exploit. Overcoming this hatred and unifying is the key to securing our future and basic liberties from corporate and government authoritarianism.
coldtea 7y ago
With the biggest incarceration rate, greatest executions in all the west, and biggest number of cops who kill people, it's amazing how ideas like being the "land of the free" stick to the populace...
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  The police seem free enough, perhaps it's their land. A state of their own, even.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  > "land of the free" That just means we're legally afforded more individual liberties than most (if not all) other countries.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    Most "western" nations provide roughly the same legal rights to their citizens. There's some variance, but there's also a large amount of variance in laws between states within the USA.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      There's no country in the world that provides, to the same degree as the USA, extraordinarily broad freedom of speech (and association) and the right to keep and bear arms. And, to the extent that citizens of other "western" nations enjoy legal rights typical of republican democracies, it's because the US set the trend in the 18th century. At that time, the concept of a creedal nation obtaining its legitimacy from a governing document, in it providing checks & balances to limit the power of government, along with a bill of rights that guarantee broad protection of rights pertaining to speech, bearing arms, impartial trial, privacy (searches and seizures) — was truly unique to the US. That it is now commonplace in the West is a testament to one of America's many lasting contributions to the world.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
LB232323 7y ago
Even before this, cops in the klan have been murdering minorities with impunity for a long time. This is what fascism looks like, no accountability for state-sponsored murder of innocents. If anyone is interested in American history: Before we had our modern police departments, our earliest systems of law enforcement were actually slave patrols and organizations called Indian Constables. These institutions are rooted in controlling the behaviors of minorities. If you know your history, you know that slavery and colonization never really ended. The 13th amendment, world-leading prison labor system, and border camps are part of this living legacy. You can read more here: https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-a...
- teddyh 7y ago
  While I, like you, am against both state-sponsored murder of innocents and fascism, I believe you are using the word “fascism” incorrectly here. In my understanding of the word, fascism is a principle where corporations and the state make common cause against the people, whom they seek to exploit or control, respectively. This is not the same kind of thing as state-sanktioned death squads; even though they might be equal in their offensiveness, one should take care not to equate them. It is a grave mistake to bundle up all of one’s dislikes and call them all the same; they are not. Many things are even fundamentally opposed, but equally abhorrent.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    > corporations and the state make common cause against the people, whom they seek to exploit or control, respectively. That's exactly the primary purpose of the police. The police serves capital and the state (which also serves capital) in order to exploit and control the people.
    - heliheliheli 7y ago
      "serves capital" capital is a conscious entity here?
  - 7y ago
lidHanteyk 7y ago
The words "by wearing that badge, they're the chosen whites" [0] keep going through my head. It disgusts me that the cop who is also a pastor has no problem with their conduct. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI
- LB232323 7y ago
  Police officers and police departments are made up of all ethnicities, same goes for the owners of capital. Not all who profess faith are true to their teachings. Just look at how the teachings of Christianity were used to colonize America, the largest genocide in human history.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Oh, agreed. I am fairly anti-Christian, and I don't mean to say that cops should be held to higher standards when they're pastors, but more that it is despicable that a single person should both claim to be a source of moral guidance and also a tool of state violence. It reeks of theocracy.
BiteCode_dev 7y ago
The chapters on the USA in history books of 2030 are going to be so heavy to read: << Chocked by 9/11, they decided to implicitly discard the Habeas Corpus by installing the Patriot Act and officially autorize torture. A temporary measure that never got revoked. Then, they went to war on the other side on the globe, spending a trillion of dollars, against the UN vote, lying about WMD. Meanwhile, they setup mass surveillance of their own people, and ruthlessly attacked the ones speaking against it. They elected Bush twice, and Trump, reinforcing every day anti-intellectualism, fear, agressivity and violence as part of the country culture. The medias, including news outlets and tv shows, followed since this is what brought the biggest audience. Injustice rose. While the poor had a hard time even getting decent health treatment or diet and the black community compose most inmate population, milked by a privatized social system, the powerful are exonerated from accountability: rogue cops are not condamned, the Panama papers lead to nowhere, Esptein died in prison, brankrupt giants are bailed out with peoople's money and Trump was never impeached, staying the center of attention. Finally, the covid-19 outbreak stuck the country in recession, rendering tens of millions of people incapable of producing revenue, tanking the oil price, and elevating social tensions. >> Since the US peace keepers seems to have a licence to kill, this is not going to end well. I'm glad I'm in Europe watching the show from afar. You have all my compassion.
- OldFatCactus 7y ago
  little hyperbolic and a tad too smug I think. I believe history will be a little kinder, all things considered.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Look at current encyclopedia articles covering these topics [0][1][2][3][4][5] and see for yourself what sort of facts are headed for the history books. Parent is being very gentle on our neoconservative, neocolonialist, fascist, disappointing legacy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_St... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
tigerBL00D 7y ago
This topic is quite upsetting. I wonder if there is a technological solution. Perhaps some sort of volunteer-run citizens surveillance network that uses sensor fusion to collect and monitor police actions leading up to and during confrontation in detail. Could that help make stronger cases against brutality?
- djaque 7y ago
  Well, I think body cameras are the most important technological solution. Unfortunately they're still huge problems with how the footage is dealt with and who is allowed to handle it. How many times have you seen police abuse cases where the body camera "wasn't running" or the footage was "lost"? I remember the NYT article a month or two ago about the police officer planting cocaine. The only reason he was caught was because he tried to shut his body cam off and didn't do it correctly. Unfortunately he still didn't receive reasonable punishment, but we at least know about it because of the cameras.
- LB232323 7y ago
  Cop watches do exist, these organizations could definitely benefit from the minds and expertise that make advanced technology possible. However, they do not remove the fundamental power structure that makes these laws possible. Changing the power structure requires collective action, that is the meaning of a revolution and a revolutionary. The recent rent strikes in Houston were organized entirely online. The internet allows us to organize nearly instantly across the entire planet, but we need people in the street to make change a reality.
djyaz1200 7y ago
My sister is a DA so I hear the other side of this. Police are people and they can get scared, angry, and make mistakes. Deaths at the hands of police are always horrible but an important message that is not broadcast clearly enough in every community is... NEVER RESIST ARREST! Never! When a police officer instructs you to do something just do it. If you disagree with the order there is a mechanism to voice that disagreement called the court. If you defy a police directive they will use rapidly escalating force to make you comply that can endanger your life. This used to be pretty well understood and I think we need better public communication about this. We also need to make sure the courts are more accomodating to underprivileged communities because if people don't believe the courts are fair then disputes are going to get settled in the street with violence. EDIT: On the other side I believe if a police officer contributes to the death of someone in the line of duty they need to surrender their badge, even if they played by the rules. If the other person loses their life you should at least lose your job. That kind of incentive might discourage some of the cowboy culture on their side that's not helping here.
- zorked 7y ago
  Like you I also come from a third-world country and this sort of thing is also the advice there. Now I live in a much better country and I no longer have to fear the police. Quite a change. There is no way why this has to be the way it is. If you are afraid of the police, it is the police's fault. Time to start arresting them and cleaning up.
  - djyaz1200 7y ago
    I agree some of them are bad hence my edit. The problem is two sided and we should address problems on both sides.
  - LB232323 7y ago
    There is something enlightening and deeply inspiring about how protesters in Ecuador were able to detain the police themselves and order them to unequip their riot gear. Among the crowd they were presented as equal to the protesters. Many riot police are portrayed as faceless monsters hiding behind riot masks and advanced military equipment. It had never occurred to me that the people can win and detain the police, not the other way around.
steve76 7y ago
The article fails to show how dangerous those situations are. A pneumonia patient walking through a hospital where people are recovering from strokes and heart attacks. Wrestling with a police officer on a busy highway. You can close down municipalities or live in places where there are no police. Then other people kill you for acting like a jerk. Beaten to death by the nurses or blasted apart by oncoming traffic. So much better.
_pmf_ 7y ago
Nurses are spat on, thrown bodily fluid at, bitten on a daily basis. That the USA practically abolished involuntary admission to mental wards is what creates scenes like in the beginning of the article.
- mariodiana 7y ago
  > Staff at the local hospital in tiny Madill, Oklahoma, called the police in the early evening of March 24, 2011, for help giving Johnny Leija an injection to calm him. I don't want to jump to defend the cops, but you bring up a point that jibes with my suspicion. Just look at that opening sentence to the article. Don't you suspect understatement there? Hospital staff deal all the time with patients who are upset because they're having trouble breathing, which is what I'm guessing someone who comes in sick from a week with pneumonia might exhibit. I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol. So, if it came to their wanting to give him an injection "to calm him," I think responsible journalism would have tried to get a better picture of exactly what an "un-calm" Mr. Leija was like. I doubt he looked like he did in the first 7 seconds of that video. That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they could deescalate if they tried. The bottom line is, if you ask me, there is more to this story.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol. You'd be entirely wrong. The major hospital in my state capital, where I work as a paramedic for the EMS system, 400 beds, a 5 unit secure mental area in the ED, serving a population of 200,000... ... has 4 security officers 24/7. "Tiny Madill, OK" has a population of 3,000. The "hospital" is a glorified urgent care (https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-madill https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-madill). If they have 24/7 security, and that's a big if, as I've delivered patients to and from similar hospitals in the outreaches of our county and surrounds, there would be most likely 1 person. And in those cases, absolutely calling LE is the go to. Hell, even my hospital described above does, when someone proves problematic, violent. > That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they could deescalate if they tried. Very true. I train new EMTs and de-escalation is a big part of their patient/ scene communication training. I repeatedly see LE on calls I am on undoing whatever de-escalation my partner and I have done.
craftinator 7y ago
Maybe we need to look into more practical non lethal weaponry for the police, and remove their ability to carry a lethal sidearm. If we could develop a high accuracy non tethered taser, or something that has good stopping power and a decent accuracy at 25 meters, that would be a replacement. Then they could have an AR15 locked in the trunk; if they know they're going into a really high risk situation, it'll be there. But it won't be the first thing that they reach for when a homeless guy is swinging around a broom handle in public.
- gccxsse 7y ago
  Oh, no. Police rarely escalate the situation immediately. They waiting until sufficient back up arrives before they draw multiple guns and shout conflicting orders.
canada_dry 7y ago
Also factor in that the courts have upheld that police forces have "no duty to protect" per Lozito v. New York City [i]. It's pretty clear that policing in the US is broken. [i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree
rsync 7y ago
Anytime I hear people, in conversation, speak about police and draw any kind of distinction between "Police" and "Civilians" (their language) I immediately interrupt and correct them: Police are civilians. As a firefighter/medic this is sometimes uncomfortable, depending on the setting, but I persist. I would like it if this pushback, in language, would grow and I encourage everyone to make these corrections. EDIT: to be clear, I am encouraging a distinction between civilians (like you, or I, or police officers) and the military who are governed by their own code of justice and held to a different standard of law and order.
- gwd 7y ago
  > Police are civilians. Well the police certainly aren't (or shouldn't be) military, if that's what you mean. But there certainly should be a distinction made between the police and a random guy with a gun who thinks the black dude that just jogged by is the thief they've been looking for.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    For reference; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-georgia-man-shot-while-jogging-lawyers-call-n1201301 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-georg...
- Infinitesimus 7y ago
  With all due respect, that theory is divorced from reality. In practice, police consistently abuse power with little consequence. If doubtful, review what happens with most of the cases when ethnic minorities are killed, harassed, and abused by cops over the past several decades. [ the perpetrators getting a slap on the wrist ] A cop can shoot and kill you, say they were "afraid for their life" and walk away. Warning, disturbing content: (See: https://youtu.be/n1pJe_Tcdeg https://youtu.be/n1pJe_Tcdeg and many other deaths). Police can steal your possessions under the umbrella of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_Unit... with minimal recourse. I like to believe you when you say police are civilians, but let's call a spade a spade. They sure act above the law civilians have to follow (hint: because they are.) > EDIT: to be clear, I am encouraging a distinction between civilians (like you, or I, or police officers) and the military who are governed by their own code of justice and held to a different standard of law and order. The police are held to a different standard of law and order. Do you truly believe otherwise in the United States of America?
Shivetya 7y ago
Cato and other Libertarian groups have long been trying to get qualified immunity thrown out and while there is an odd uninformed dislike for Cato here this article [0] is worth perusing simply for some of the links including a good summary [1] why QI is unlawful including how it basically defies Congress's attempt to protect people rights [2] Don't think the SC is deaf to the issue, the amount of money from Police and Sheriff unions defending QI is immense so when cases do land in courts the expertise in representation is lopsided on top of courts favoring police in most actions. Also make sure not to forget, QI isn't just about cops. It also shields other government employees who cause harm to people or their property [0] https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity [1] https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
typenil 7y ago
Even before I had a family member killed by police, my rule of thumb has been to only call the police in life or death situations - because the act of calling them turns it into a life or death situation.
- downerending 7y ago
  This is true. It's also true of firefighters and doctors (among others). The decision to bring people like this should not be taken lightly, because even assuming good intent on their part (which I generally do), you're giving a lot of decision-making power to people that you don't know. To give a specific example, I had a kid trapped once in a situation that I became worried could be a tragedy if they weren't freed pretty quickly. In pretty short order, I decided to call the fire department for help, and I quickly had six experienced guys with lots of equipment to help. But, the solution ended up involving using a rather large, nasty-looking circular saw within a few inches of the kid's head. That in itself could easily have turned out far worse, as blades can break, hands can slip, etc. Sometimes there are no great answers. As techies, we're used to the idea that we can take our time and usually try again if our first attempt goes wrong. Those professionals, though, often operate under time pressure and get only one chance to get it right. I wouldn't want that responsibility, myself. I'm very sorry for your loss.
oh_sigh 7y ago
90% of this comment section is reddit-level "amerikkka bad". I can't believe this entire thread hasn't been culled yet.
boyesm 7y ago
I’d argue the US has the best branding of any country in the western world. It promises freedom, and the rewarding of hard work which can be very appealing to people seeking a better life. However, based off what I see in the media, a lot of these promises are not true for oppressed groups or for people in certain areas. Like the use of excessive force by police officers. It seems like this all comes back to fundamental issues in the way some Americans think (that certain people are better than others). My question is, is there a way to correct these fundamental issues such as racism (or more generally ignorance)?
jeffdavis 7y ago
Why is this a federal issue? Is there a federal law protecting state police? Or some kind of Constitution or common law thing?
tahira0509 7y ago
How
RickJWagner 7y ago
What should the cops have done? Let him run amok, possibly injuring others? They used a stun gun, not a gun. If the cops had let the strong, mentally confused guy go on doing whatever he wanted, it could have ended badly in any of a million other ways. Lose/lose

197 points by leephillips 7y ago

stallmanite 7y ago

Just what we need more imbalance

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
In the country with the highest percentage of prison population. And the highest number of killings by police (per capita) by far.

ashtonkem 7y ago

It’s my understanding that qualified immunity was created by the courts; there is no law or constitutional clause that explicitly forms it. I’d say that Congress should pass a law to wind back qualified immunity, but I fear they’d just make it worse.

afthonos 7y ago
"Created by the courts" is what opponents of any doctrine say about it. The Supreme Court's view of it is probably quite different. :-) In other words, I think the only ways to get rid of qualified immunity are (1) to get SCOTUS to overrule their own quite recent precedent or (2) pass a constitutional amendment.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  We have an amendment, the 14th. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". If the law is interpreted as granting qualified immunity to police officers under certain circumstances then it should apply to anyone else who meets those same criteria. To carve out criteria that only applies to cops should run afoul of the 14th amendment.
  - abduhl 7y ago
    Qualified immunity is a privilege that flows from the sovereign, not from the individual rights of the police officer. Equal protection does not apply because qualified immunity isn’t a personal protection but rather a governmental protection necessary for the arms of the government (eg - its employees) to carry out their function without fear of litigation. So, it does apply to anyone who meets the same criteria: anyone who is a government employee carrying out their job functions.
    - ashtonkem 7y ago
      In principle this makes sense; you shouldn’t be able to harass the county clerk with lawsuits as they implement laws duly passed by state legislators. There are other mechanisms to challenge laws. The problem comes into play with lethal force, and how transparently thin the excuses tend to be. Qualified Immunity defenses hinge on there being a specific law and precedence that the cops must have known about before doing something illegal, a gross perversion of the principle that “ignorance of the law is no defense”. This leads to clearly unjust situations where cops get away with killing citizens or destroying their property, because there wasn’t sufficiently narrow case law to overcome qualified immunity.
      - abduhl 7y ago
        I don’t disagree that qualified immunity has been extended way beyond where it was even arguably appropriate, but I was just explaining why invoking the 14th for its protections is not appropriate. I am anti-QI, by the way. Not just the current QI reading, but essentially all QI defenses.
        ashtonkem 7y ago
        Aside from really hating how QI currently works, I’m not anti-QI in principle; but in practice I suspect that what I’d like to see is legally unworkable. Basically I’d love to see QI reserved for low-discretion and non-lethal cases. So QI for a county clerk implementing the law as written, you should sue the state over that, but no QI for police officers who might shoot a citizen. The level of discretion and the consequences for each action should be a factor in whether or not QI applies, IMHO. It’s just not clear to me how that could be accomplished in the current legal framework.
xxpor 7y ago
Qualified immunity is the most egregious example of "judicial activism", yet the people who complain about it are the same people that support it. The difference is things like gay marriage are a lot more visible.
avs733 7y ago
it is a whole cloth invention of law.
- greggyb 7y ago
  This is the tradition of common law, and is not unique to the US. The job of the courts is to discover law. Even in the case where a sovereign dictates a law (older form, in monarchies) or a legislative body writes a law (modern form, in many republics and democracies), it is the duty of the courts to interpret these laws, both in the written law's specific verbiage, and its application in the context of other legal decisions. It is effectively impossible to legislate every aspect of society. One solution is to empower the judiciary to create/discover law. I am not making a qualitative judgment here, merely observing that this is not an instance of malfeasance or overreach in any way.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I really don 't understand why media outlets lately try to damage the reading experience with all the weird scrolling stuff. They do excellent journalism only to make it barely readable. Does anybody find this stuff actually good?

ashtonkem 7y ago
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This case was gratuitous, I agree. But sometimes the animations can be extremely helpful in weaving in complicated data into a narrative. Think graphs that highlight the relevant lines, etc.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Graphs are fine but having to scroll for each paragraph while waiting for graphics to download makes no sense., I was about to stop reading until a little later it turned into a normal article.
leephillips 7y ago
I like it, when used with care. I think it works pretty well in this article, and it's been used to very good effect at the New York Times. The main problem is that I'm distracted from the content by wondering how they did certain things, how it might be adapted to other content, whether I would want to use it, etc.
ballenf 7y ago
I liked here. It feels more efficient when the illustrations or photos are not a parallel reading exercise. Where you're never quite sure when to read the photo caption or end up with it just repeating what you've already read in the body. You could do that without the weird scrolling stuff, but I thought it worked well here. I will resort to reader mode if it gets annoying. I do worry a little bit about archival challenges, however. Not sure that we'll be able to replicate the full experience as browsers continue to evolve and change.
soledades 7y ago
Personally I love it. Even when it doesn't work, I am happy to see the experimentation. Not everything has to fit my usual forms of consumption. For those who don't like it, a normal article is just a keyboard shortcut away...

_bxg1 7y ago

Beat cops don't need guns. The UK has proven that they can do their jobs without them. Taking them away would not only remove the possibility of inappropriate discharge, I'd bet it would reign in the subconscious power-tripping that so many officers succumb to. When you could shoot somebody and they can't shoot you I imagine you experience a sense of total dominance over them, rather than a working relationship as an officer of the peace.

pinfisher 7y ago
Beat cops are not going to want to go into some neighborhoods without protection.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Perhaps the CIA should supply them with crack so they can bargain for their lives.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  You managed to get my dog's ears to perk up through my phone. Congrats!
- pstuart 7y ago
  Understandably but that's often because of a feedback loop by their bad behavior. If those troubled neighborhoods collectively saw the cops as actually serving the community (rather than terrorizing it), they would likely be welcomed and safe.
  - alehul 7y ago
    Most of the resentment stems from how much crime is committed in these neighborhoods, which requires police presence, and how the penal system in the U.S. punishes rather than rehabilitating those found guilty. Also, the lack of cooperation in poorer neighborhoods is largely due to respect for, or fear of, the criminals. There's a lot more layers here - this 'shift' would require tons of slain officers, a lack of respect for the law, so on and so forth. While I agree officers should do their best to serve the community, disarming them in dangerous areas isn't necessary to accomplish it.

freepor 7y ago

On the one hand, cops shouldn’t get to kill unlawfully and say “I was doing my job.” On the other hand, if an Amazon engineer checks in a bug and AWS goes down and a hospital loses its medical records and people die, we hold Amazon liable, not the engineer.

whateveracct 7y ago
Well yeah there is a difference between killing another human being in the first person vs indirectly through corporate processes.
BubRoss 7y ago
No one should be depending on an internet connection or external server to keep people alive and there is no way amazon would somehow be responsible for a nonsense design like this, if it ever did happen.
yowlingcat 7y ago
What should it tell you about the two systems if the former continues to happen often with no real improvements while the latter happens rarely if ever and is immediately rectified?

Someone1234 7y ago

Sir Robert Peel would be ashamed; this is in clear contradiction to principle 7: > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today. The Peelian principles are akin to a "Policing Constitution." The closer you get to its ideals the higher quality your policing is, and by that standard US policing even outside of "abuse" falls well short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

JanSolo 7y ago
I had heard of Robert Peel, but not of his principles. Thanks for the link; it was an interesting read. And I agree that US policing would really benefit from following some of his ideas. Specifically Principle 6.
- Frondo 7y ago
  I imagine the Discworld series is pretty popular here, but for those who aren't super familiar with it, the character of Sam Vimes is a cop (and very much an honorable one) whose policing is based on Peelian principles. They even had a character named Keel in one of the books; the sort of historical reference Pratchett loved to include. https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_Vimes
logfromblammo 7y ago
Peelian policing is but one of the foundation influences on U.S. policing, introduced in northern metropolitan areas: Boston, New York City, and Chicago. The other major influence was the slave patrol. This is why there is such a strong overlap between the membership rosters of the KKK and police departments. As policing expanded, and the institutions intermingled, the former was corrupted by the latter. It is impossible to uphold #7 in an organization that implicitly divides "the public" into "citizens to be protected", "citizens to be ignored", and "savages". The only way we can get there from here is to completely dissolve municipal police departments, and rebuild them from scratch, without re-hiring anyone that has ever served as a cop, training them specifically to be wardens of the whole community, rather than employ the "everyone is trying to kill you" videos that they show the young cop-cadets to make them twitchy and paranoid whenever anyone has a non-visible hand or is within 7 yards of them.

darksaints 7y ago

The police culture in the United States, enabled by these absolutely absurd legal protections, is consistently the most embarrassing thing about our country. We're famous for our police corruption and brutality, to the point that the state departments of foreign countries have to warn their citizens of interactions with police while visiting the US. The portuguese-american community that I grew up in mostly consisted of people who fled the fascist authoritarianism of Antonio Salazar, with the promise of freedom and prosperity. They found the prosperity just fine, but lived here long enough to see America become even more authoritarian than the Portugal that they fled. It is interesting to me that many of them are leaving the prosperity behind to return to Portugal, as it is now more free than we are.

dwater 7y ago
Parts of the US government also know not to share certain information with law enforcement. "[FBI] policies have been crafted to take into account the active presence of domestic extremists in U.S. police departments." "White supremacists and other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies." https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-inve...
- LB232323 7y ago
  I admire the work of the FBI against hate groups and extremists. However, one only needs to look at their work against BLM or the Civil Rights Movement to see that they are part of the same structure. Workers unifying across social divisions is the greatest threat to oppressing the people. It is the most powerful method we have of gaining material freedom and our most basic human dignities, regardless of ethnic identity. Some of our most deeply exploited white citizens are convinced that they have it better than others while they experience collapsing infrastructure, life on government benefits, prescription epidemics, growing government overreach, and erosion of their working rights. They also make up the heart of white supremacists and domestic extremists, while more fortunate liberal territories are convinced to despise and separate themselves from their fellow workers. In short, our nation is divided by hatred and the result is a populace that is easier to control, oppress, and economically exploit. Overcoming this hatred and unifying is the key to securing our future and basic liberties from corporate and government authoritarianism.

coldtea 7y ago

With the biggest incarceration rate, greatest executions in all the west, and biggest number of cops who kill people, it's amazing how ideas like being the "land of the free" stick to the populace...

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
The police seem free enough, perhaps it's their land. A state of their own, even.
stronglikedan 7y ago
> "land of the free" That just means we're legally afforded more individual liberties than most (if not all) other countries.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Most "western" nations provide roughly the same legal rights to their citizens. There's some variance, but there's also a large amount of variance in laws between states within the USA.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    There's no country in the world that provides, to the same degree as the USA, extraordinarily broad freedom of speech (and association) and the right to keep and bear arms. And, to the extent that citizens of other "western" nations enjoy legal rights typical of republican democracies, it's because the US set the trend in the 18th century. At that time, the concept of a creedal nation obtaining its legitimacy from a governing document, in it providing checks & balances to limit the power of government, along with a bill of rights that guarantee broad protection of rights pertaining to speech, bearing arms, impartial trial, privacy (searches and seizures) — was truly unique to the US. That it is now commonplace in the West is a testament to one of America's many lasting contributions to the world.
    - kennywinker 7y ago

LB232323 7y ago

Even before this, cops in the klan have been murdering minorities with impunity for a long time. This is what fascism looks like, no accountability for state-sponsored murder of innocents. If anyone is interested in American history: Before we had our modern police departments, our earliest systems of law enforcement were actually slave patrols and organizations called Indian Constables. These institutions are rooted in controlling the behaviors of minorities. If you know your history, you know that slavery and colonization never really ended. The 13th amendment, world-leading prison labor system, and border camps are part of this living legacy. You can read more here: https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-a...

teddyh 7y ago
While I, like you, am against both state-sponsored murder of innocents and fascism, I believe you are using the word “fascism” incorrectly here. In my understanding of the word, fascism is a principle where corporations and the state make common cause against the people, whom they seek to exploit or control, respectively. This is not the same kind of thing as state-sanktioned death squads; even though they might be equal in their offensiveness, one should take care not to equate them. It is a grave mistake to bundle up all of one’s dislikes and call them all the same; they are not. Many things are even fundamentally opposed, but equally abhorrent.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  > corporations and the state make common cause against the people, whom they seek to exploit or control, respectively. That's exactly the primary purpose of the police. The police serves capital and the state (which also serves capital) in order to exploit and control the people.
  - heliheliheli 7y ago
    "serves capital" capital is a conscious entity here?
- 7y ago

lidHanteyk 7y ago

The words "by wearing that badge, they're the chosen whites" [0] keep going through my head. It disgusts me that the cop who is also a pastor has no problem with their conduct. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI

LB232323 7y ago
Police officers and police departments are made up of all ethnicities, same goes for the owners of capital. Not all who profess faith are true to their teachings. Just look at how the teachings of Christianity were used to colonize America, the largest genocide in human history.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Oh, agreed. I am fairly anti-Christian, and I don't mean to say that cops should be held to higher standards when they're pastors, but more that it is despicable that a single person should both claim to be a source of moral guidance and also a tool of state violence. It reeks of theocracy.

BiteCode_dev 7y ago

The chapters on the USA in history books of 2030 are going to be so heavy to read: << Chocked by 9/11, they decided to implicitly discard the Habeas Corpus by installing the Patriot Act and officially autorize torture. A temporary measure that never got revoked. Then, they went to war on the other side on the globe, spending a trillion of dollars, against the UN vote, lying about WMD. Meanwhile, they setup mass surveillance of their own people, and ruthlessly attacked the ones speaking against it. They elected Bush twice, and Trump, reinforcing every day anti-intellectualism, fear, agressivity and violence as part of the country culture. The medias, including news outlets and tv shows, followed since this is what brought the biggest audience. Injustice rose. While the poor had a hard time even getting decent health treatment or diet and the black community compose most inmate population, milked by a privatized social system, the powerful are exonerated from accountability: rogue cops are not condamned, the Panama papers lead to nowhere, Esptein died in prison, brankrupt giants are bailed out with peoople's money and Trump was never impeached, staying the center of attention. Finally, the covid-19 outbreak stuck the country in recession, rendering tens of millions of people incapable of producing revenue, tanking the oil price, and elevating social tensions. >> Since the US peace keepers seems to have a licence to kill, this is not going to end well. I'm glad I'm in Europe watching the show from afar. You have all my compassion.

OldFatCactus 7y ago
little hyperbolic and a tad too smug I think. I believe history will be a little kinder, all things considered.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Look at current encyclopedia articles covering these topics [0][1][2][3][4][5] and see for yourself what sort of facts are headed for the history books. Parent is being very gentle on our neoconservative, neocolonialist, fascist, disappointing legacy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_St... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

tigerBL00D 7y ago

This topic is quite upsetting. I wonder if there is a technological solution. Perhaps some sort of volunteer-run citizens surveillance network that uses sensor fusion to collect and monitor police actions leading up to and during confrontation in detail. Could that help make stronger cases against brutality?

djaque 7y ago
Well, I think body cameras are the most important technological solution. Unfortunately they're still huge problems with how the footage is dealt with and who is allowed to handle it. How many times have you seen police abuse cases where the body camera "wasn't running" or the footage was "lost"? I remember the NYT article a month or two ago about the police officer planting cocaine. The only reason he was caught was because he tried to shut his body cam off and didn't do it correctly. Unfortunately he still didn't receive reasonable punishment, but we at least know about it because of the cameras.
LB232323 7y ago
Cop watches do exist, these organizations could definitely benefit from the minds and expertise that make advanced technology possible. However, they do not remove the fundamental power structure that makes these laws possible. Changing the power structure requires collective action, that is the meaning of a revolution and a revolutionary. The recent rent strikes in Houston were organized entirely online. The internet allows us to organize nearly instantly across the entire planet, but we need people in the street to make change a reality.

djyaz1200 7y ago

My sister is a DA so I hear the other side of this. Police are people and they can get scared, angry, and make mistakes. Deaths at the hands of police are always horrible but an important message that is not broadcast clearly enough in every community is... NEVER RESIST ARREST! Never! When a police officer instructs you to do something just do it. If you disagree with the order there is a mechanism to voice that disagreement called the court. If you defy a police directive they will use rapidly escalating force to make you comply that can endanger your life. This used to be pretty well understood and I think we need better public communication about this. We also need to make sure the courts are more accomodating to underprivileged communities because if people don't believe the courts are fair then disputes are going to get settled in the street with violence. EDIT: On the other side I believe if a police officer contributes to the death of someone in the line of duty they need to surrender their badge, even if they played by the rules. If the other person loses their life you should at least lose your job. That kind of incentive might discourage some of the cowboy culture on their side that's not helping here.

zorked 7y ago
Like you I also come from a third-world country and this sort of thing is also the advice there. Now I live in a much better country and I no longer have to fear the police. Quite a change. There is no way why this has to be the way it is. If you are afraid of the police, it is the police's fault. Time to start arresting them and cleaning up.
- djyaz1200 7y ago
  I agree some of them are bad hence my edit. The problem is two sided and we should address problems on both sides.
- LB232323 7y ago
  There is something enlightening and deeply inspiring about how protesters in Ecuador were able to detain the police themselves and order them to unequip their riot gear. Among the crowd they were presented as equal to the protesters. Many riot police are portrayed as faceless monsters hiding behind riot masks and advanced military equipment. It had never occurred to me that the people can win and detain the police, not the other way around.

steve76 7y ago

The article fails to show how dangerous those situations are. A pneumonia patient walking through a hospital where people are recovering from strokes and heart attacks. Wrestling with a police officer on a busy highway. You can close down municipalities or live in places where there are no police. Then other people kill you for acting like a jerk. Beaten to death by the nurses or blasted apart by oncoming traffic. So much better.

_pmf_ 7y ago

Nurses are spat on, thrown bodily fluid at, bitten on a daily basis. That the USA practically abolished involuntary admission to mental wards is what creates scenes like in the beginning of the article.

mariodiana 7y ago
> Staff at the local hospital in tiny Madill, Oklahoma, called the police in the early evening of March 24, 2011, for help giving Johnny Leija an injection to calm him. I don't want to jump to defend the cops, but you bring up a point that jibes with my suspicion. Just look at that opening sentence to the article. Don't you suspect understatement there? Hospital staff deal all the time with patients who are upset because they're having trouble breathing, which is what I'm guessing someone who comes in sick from a week with pneumonia might exhibit. I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol. So, if it came to their wanting to give him an injection "to calm him," I think responsible journalism would have tried to get a better picture of exactly what an "un-calm" Mr. Leija was like. I doubt he looked like he did in the first 7 seconds of that video. That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they could deescalate if they tried. The bottom line is, if you ask me, there is more to this story.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol. You'd be entirely wrong. The major hospital in my state capital, where I work as a paramedic for the EMS system, 400 beds, a 5 unit secure mental area in the ED, serving a population of 200,000... ... has 4 security officers 24/7. "Tiny Madill, OK" has a population of 3,000. The "hospital" is a glorified urgent care (https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-madill https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-madill). If they have 24/7 security, and that's a big if, as I've delivered patients to and from similar hospitals in the outreaches of our county and surrounds, there would be most likely 1 person. And in those cases, absolutely calling LE is the go to. Hell, even my hospital described above does, when someone proves problematic, violent. > That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they could deescalate if they tried. Very true. I train new EMTs and de-escalation is a big part of their patient/ scene communication training. I repeatedly see LE on calls I am on undoing whatever de-escalation my partner and I have done.

craftinator 7y ago

Maybe we need to look into more practical non lethal weaponry for the police, and remove their ability to carry a lethal sidearm. If we could develop a high accuracy non tethered taser, or something that has good stopping power and a decent accuracy at 25 meters, that would be a replacement. Then they could have an AR15 locked in the trunk; if they know they're going into a really high risk situation, it'll be there. But it won't be the first thing that they reach for when a homeless guy is swinging around a broom handle in public.

gccxsse 7y ago
Oh, no. Police rarely escalate the situation immediately. They waiting until sufficient back up arrives before they draw multiple guns and shout conflicting orders.

canada_dry 7y ago

Also factor in that the courts have upheld that police forces have "no duty to protect" per Lozito v. New York City [i]. It's pretty clear that policing in the US is broken. [i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree

rsync 7y ago

Anytime I hear people, in conversation, speak about police and draw any kind of distinction between "Police" and "Civilians" (their language) I immediately interrupt and correct them: Police are civilians. As a firefighter/medic this is sometimes uncomfortable, depending on the setting, but I persist. I would like it if this pushback, in language, would grow and I encourage everyone to make these corrections. EDIT: to be clear, I am encouraging a distinction between civilians (like you, or I, or police officers) and the military who are governed by their own code of justice and held to a different standard of law and order.

gwd 7y ago
> Police are civilians. Well the police certainly aren't (or shouldn't be) military, if that's what you mean. But there certainly should be a distinction made between the police and a random guy with a gun who thinks the black dude that just jogged by is the thief they've been looking for.
- scarface74 7y ago
  For reference; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-georgia-man-shot-while-jogging-lawyers-call-n1201301 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-georg...
Infinitesimus 7y ago
With all due respect, that theory is divorced from reality. In practice, police consistently abuse power with little consequence. If doubtful, review what happens with most of the cases when ethnic minorities are killed, harassed, and abused by cops over the past several decades. [ the perpetrators getting a slap on the wrist ] A cop can shoot and kill you, say they were "afraid for their life" and walk away. Warning, disturbing content: (See: https://youtu.be/n1pJe_Tcdeg https://youtu.be/n1pJe_Tcdeg and many other deaths). Police can steal your possessions under the umbrella of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_Unit... with minimal recourse. I like to believe you when you say police are civilians, but let's call a spade a spade. They sure act above the law civilians have to follow (hint: because they are.) > EDIT: to be clear, I am encouraging a distinction between civilians (like you, or I, or police officers) and the military who are governed by their own code of justice and held to a different standard of law and order. The police are held to a different standard of law and order. Do you truly believe otherwise in the United States of America?

Shivetya 7y ago

Cato and other Libertarian groups have long been trying to get qualified immunity thrown out and while there is an odd uninformed dislike for Cato here this article [0] is worth perusing simply for some of the links including a good summary [1] why QI is unlawful including how it basically defies Congress's attempt to protect people rights [2] Don't think the SC is deaf to the issue, the amount of money from Police and Sheriff unions defending QI is immense so when cases do land in courts the expertise in representation is lopsided on top of courts favoring police in most actions. Also make sure not to forget, QI isn't just about cops. It also shields other government employees who cause harm to people or their property [0] https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity [1] https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

typenil 7y ago

Even before I had a family member killed by police, my rule of thumb has been to only call the police in life or death situations - because the act of calling them turns it into a life or death situation.

downerending 7y ago
This is true. It's also true of firefighters and doctors (among others). The decision to bring people like this should not be taken lightly, because even assuming good intent on their part (which I generally do), you're giving a lot of decision-making power to people that you don't know. To give a specific example, I had a kid trapped once in a situation that I became worried could be a tragedy if they weren't freed pretty quickly. In pretty short order, I decided to call the fire department for help, and I quickly had six experienced guys with lots of equipment to help. But, the solution ended up involving using a rather large, nasty-looking circular saw within a few inches of the kid's head. That in itself could easily have turned out far worse, as blades can break, hands can slip, etc. Sometimes there are no great answers. As techies, we're used to the idea that we can take our time and usually try again if our first attempt goes wrong. Those professionals, though, often operate under time pressure and get only one chance to get it right. I wouldn't want that responsibility, myself. I'm very sorry for your loss.

oh_sigh 7y ago

90% of this comment section is reddit-level "amerikkka bad". I can't believe this entire thread hasn't been culled yet.

boyesm 7y ago

I’d argue the US has the best branding of any country in the western world. It promises freedom, and the rewarding of hard work which can be very appealing to people seeking a better life. However, based off what I see in the media, a lot of these promises are not true for oppressed groups or for people in certain areas. Like the use of excessive force by police officers. It seems like this all comes back to fundamental issues in the way some Americans think (that certain people are better than others). My question is, is there a way to correct these fundamental issues such as racism (or more generally ignorance)?

jeffdavis 7y ago

Why is this a federal issue? Is there a federal law protecting state police? Or some kind of Constitution or common law thing?

tahira0509 7y ago

How

RickJWagner 7y ago

What should the cops have done? Let him run amok, possibly injuring others? They used a stun gun, not a gun. If the cops had let the strong, mentally confused guy go on doing whatever he wanted, it could have ended badly in any of a million other ways. Lose/lose