Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
If the officer was firing at Mr. Brown as he fled, shouldn't that be enough to charge the officer? Even if Mr. Brown reached for the officer's gun in the car, he knows that he's unarmed at that point, right? How would it be ok to shoot at him as he ran away?
Also Justice is apparently considering a civil rights inquiry into Ferguson PD practices.
Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
If the officer was firing at Mr. Brown as he fled, shouldn't that be enough to charge the officer? Even if Mr. Brown reached for the officer's gun in the car, he knows that he's unarmed at that point, right? How would it be ok to shoot at him as he ran away?
Also Justice is apparently considering a civil rights inquiry into Ferguson PD practices.
If he is considered dangerous which I would think that trying to disarm a police officer would make him.
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[citation needed] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[citation needed] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[citation needed] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes.
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is NOT an Onion article.
Did you read the whole article? The title and your quote completely misrepresent the piece. I do have to admit that I probably would not have read the article without the incendiary headline.
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is NOT an Onion article.
Did you read the whole article? The title and your quote completely misrepresent the piece. I do have to admit that I probably would not have read the article without the incendiary headline.
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with what the officer said, mainly just a lot of common sense if you ask me.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Go home people of Ferguson...its bedtime....do you know where your parents are?....Tired of seeing the same old thing every night. Get some order and control of that town. A whole community supporting a thug who has been proven to be a thief and a aggressive perp. Embarrassing.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is NOT an Onion article.
Did you read the whole article? The title and your quote completely misrepresent the piece. I do have to admit that I probably would not have read the article without the incendiary headline.
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with what the officer said, mainly just a lot of common sense if you ask me.
Agreed. The op-ed piece wasn't advocating for police misconduct. It even acknowledged that without a doubt, some police are arrogant, dismissive of civil rights, or even criminal. The author encouraged people on the receiving end of bad behavior from cops to report them or sue them. The point was simply that you are putting your safety in jeopardy when you decide to confront a cop during an incident in which the copy has stopped you. If you want to maximize your safety, far more often than not, that's the time to avoid escalation, not seek it out.
Hard to argue with that.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Christine Byers Verified account
@ChristineDByers
Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson
Remember this tweet about multiple witnesses? Byers has since retracted it as it did meet the standards for publication. She either was on or has been placed FMLA leave.
Wow. That just makes me the most surprised person in the world. Do you mean to say that there actually wasn't 12 (probably all white) witnesses who just happened to be standing right in front of the incident?
Seriously.... I'm a bit astounded by your anti-police bias and the eager swallowing of the narrative that is being used to stir up trouble.
This reporter is a crime beat reporter for a major St Louis newspaper. She's not someone off Fox news or Infowars or some place like that. Until she said her reports were ready for publishing, I had no reason to doubt her report.
The only narrative I see is the one that the PD are trying very hard to fabricate. What's with all the red herrings and lack of actual information?
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is NOT an Onion article.
Did you read the whole article? The title and your quote completely misrepresent the piece. I do have to admit that I probably would not have read the article without the incendiary headline.
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with what the officer said, mainly just a lot of common sense if you ask me.
Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Canuck wrote:The only narrative I see is the one that the PD are trying very hard to fabricate. What's with all the red herrings and lack of actual information?
They are certainly attempting to guide the narrative, but fabricate has a "this is not true" vibe which I don't think is applicable in this case.
The other side is doing the same thing, so it's not like this is unusual or one sided.
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
He's a professor of Homeland Security whatever the hell that is. I assume it is what Eric Cartman aspires too. His argument also works for many other professions too.
"I'm a rapist, just submit and it will be over soon. You can file a complaint after."
"I'm a Priest, just relax it will be over soon. You can confess after."
"I'm a Sharia judge, the stoning will be over soon. You can, oh, never mind."
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
He's a professor of Homeland Security whatever the hell that is. I assume it is what Eric Cartman aspires too. His argument also works for many other professions too.
"I'm a rapist, just submit and it will be over soon. You can file a complaint after."
"I'm a Priest, just relax it will be over soon. You can confess after."
"I'm a Sharia judge, the stoning will be over soon. You can, oh, never mind."
Ah. I thought I read "legal professor". Don't know how I misread that. That he's a professor of Homeland Security certainly answers some questions I had about his opinions though.
edit: Popehat weighs in. I haven't read it yet, but I can imagine.
edit: And he references the colonoscopy case! That's a good one.
Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
If the officer was firing at Mr. Brown as he fled, shouldn't that be enough to charge the officer? Even if Mr. Brown reached for the officer's gun in the car, he knows that he's unarmed at that point, right? How would it be ok to shoot at him as he ran away?
Also Justice is apparently considering a civil rights inquiry into Ferguson PD practices.
If he is considered dangerous which I would think that trying to disarm a police officer would make him.
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[citation needed] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[citation needed] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[citation needed] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes.
Did you just stop reading there? The next paragraph is a pretty important qualifier:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Emphasis added. Brown was unarmed, and there's no particular reason to think that he posed a significant danger to the community.
Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
If the officer was firing at Mr. Brown as he fled, shouldn't that be enough to charge the officer? Even if Mr. Brown reached for the officer's gun in the car, he knows that he's unarmed at that point, right? How would it be ok to shoot at him as he ran away?
Also Justice is apparently considering a civil rights inquiry into Ferguson PD practices.
If he is considered dangerous which I would think that trying to disarm a police officer would make him.
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[citation needed] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[citation needed] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[citation needed] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes.
Did you just stop reading there? The next paragraph is a pretty important qualifier:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Emphasis added. Brown was unarmed, and there's no particular reason to think that he posed a significant danger to the community.
Sure there is. He just punched a cop in the face and attempted to take his gun. Many persons have been deemed as dangerous under this law for much less and their homicides justifiable.
Rip wrote:Sure there is. He just punched a cop in the face and attempted to take his gun. Many persons have been deemed as dangerous under this law for much less and their homicides justifiable.
When asked to get out of the middle of the road, Brown turned violent, shoving the officer back into his car by slamming the door on him, wrestling for the gun and punching the officer in the face. If msd's post is accurate, the punch had enough force to break bones.
I think that identifies him as dangerous. I'm just not sure it's the kind of dangerous the Judge meant with regard to the community. I would prefer guns be used a helluva lot less often than they are.
None of this matters though, since he was charging the officer apparently, and the first autopsy report shows all 6 bullet wounds being suffered from the front. i.e. Either no shots were fired at Brown's back or the ones that were all missed, while the ones shot at his front all seemed to have hit (waiting on investigation).
Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.
If the officer was firing at Mr. Brown as he fled, shouldn't that be enough to charge the officer? Even if Mr. Brown reached for the officer's gun in the car, he knows that he's unarmed at that point, right? How would it be ok to shoot at him as he ran away?
Also Justice is apparently considering a civil rights inquiry into Ferguson PD practices.
If he is considered dangerous which I would think that trying to disarm a police officer would make him.
At Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[citation needed] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[citation needed] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[citation needed] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes.
Did you just stop reading there? The next paragraph is a pretty important qualifier:
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Emphasis added. Brown was unarmed, and there's no particular reason to think that he posed a significant danger to the community.
Sure there is. He just punched a cop in the face and attempted to take his gun. Many persons have been deemed as dangerous under this law for much less and their homicides justifiable.
This is a judgment call, but with Brown being unarmed and fleeing I don't see much reason to conclude that he's any more dangerous at that point than your average suspect.
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is NOT an Onion article.
Did you read the whole article? The title and your quote completely misrepresent the piece. I do have to admit that I probably would not have read the article without the incendiary headline.
Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with what the officer said, mainly just a lot of common sense if you ask me.
Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Except he didn't say that. Instead he urged people to report such behavior - AFTER it occurs. His point is that there is a time and place for reporting misconduct. Getting in an officer's face because you think he violated your constitutional rights is not the right time or place or method. Nothing good is going to come of that.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Rip wrote:
Sure there is. He just punched a cop in the face and attempted to take his gun. Many persons have been deemed as dangerous under this law for much less and their homicides justifiable.
This is a judgment call, but with Brown being unarmed and fleeing I don't see much reason to conclude that he's any more dangerous at that point than your average suspect.
It was a tense, fluid situation if the gun-grab story is to be believed. The suspect just tried to kill him (grabbing and discharging his firearm) in his car. In the ensuing struggle and as Brown started to flee, I'm not sure there's a point at which the officer would have stopped, considered the law, and possibly tried to reassess the situation. It may have still felt like he was in the same life or death struggle when he shot at the fleeing Brown. Doesn't make it right, but it's not like he sat back, scratched his chin, and made the concsious decision to shoot someone running away.
Who knows, maybe Brown thought he had shot the officer when he started running. Hearing the shots, he realized he hadn't so he came back for whatever reason. Or maybe he was wounded by the shot in the car and wasn't thinking clearly. We can only speculate on the details until/unless we get more factual information. But suffice it to say that there probably wasn't a lot of considered, rational, deliberate thinking going on on either side in the few seconds it took for the shooting to happen.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
I'll repeat myself. He urged people to report such conduct if they saw/experienced it. But do it AFTER any such event. Getting in an officer's face isn't going to do any good.
Just think about it. If an officer is violating your rights, do you think he's going to care if you start claiming them now and getting belligerent about it? He already knows he's doing it to begin with, and your pointing it out isn't going to do any good, or he wouldn't have done it to begin with. He's in a position of power right now and can do a lot of things to screw you up. You're just asking for trouble in this situation. Complain/report/protest afterwards to whoever you think needs to hear your story. But it's just common sense that getting in his face now isn't going to do you any good.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
He's a professor of Homeland Security whatever the hell that is. I assume it is what Eric Cartman aspires too. His argument also works for many other professions too.
"I'm a rapist, just submit and it will be over soon. You can file a complaint after."
"I'm a Priest, just relax it will be over soon. You can confess after."
"I'm a Sharia judge, the stoning will be over soon. You can, oh, never mind."
Those are silly irrelvant examples. The rapist and priest don't have any legal authority over you. And we don't have Sharia in this country so that's even more irrelevant.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
If you punch an officer in the face while he's in the car and then REACH into the car, you should be subduable. You're definitely off-balance and an idiot for fighting someone inside metal protection.
But trying to pull out a gun while in the car is more dangerous than hitting the gas to get enough distance to get out safely. There's no way the gun is in play unless the officer draws it in an already compromised situation.
It's not a good talking point for either side as it highlights the bad judgment of both parties.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Rip wrote:
Sure there is. He just punched a cop in the face and attempted to take his gun. Many persons have been deemed as dangerous under this law for much less and their homicides justifiable.
This is a judgment call, but with Brown being unarmed and fleeing I don't see much reason to conclude that he's any more dangerous at that point than your average suspect.
It was a tense, fluid situation if the gun-grab story is to be believed. The suspect just tried to kill him (grabbing and discharging his firearm) in his car. In the ensuing struggle and as Brown started to flee, I'm not sure there's a point at which the officer would have stopped, considered the law, and possibly tried to reassess the situation. It may have still felt like he was in the same life or death struggle when he shot at the fleeing Brown. Doesn't make it right, but it's not like he sat back, scratched his chin, and made the concsious decision to shoot someone running away.
Who knows, maybe Brown thought he had shot the officer when he started running. Hearing the shots, he realized he hadn't so he came back for whatever reason. Or maybe he was wounded by the shot in the car and wasn't thinking clearly. We can only speculate on the details until/unless we get more factual information. But suffice it to say that there probably wasn't a lot of considered, rational, deliberate thinking going on on either side in the few seconds it took for the shooting to happen.
That's a lot of maybes. Even while acknowledging that cops have to make quick and difficult calls, that can't be a license for unaccountability in matters of life or death. If you're going to excuse an officer shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect based a bunch of maybes and hypotheticals, you're going to wind up giving police officers a general license to shoot and kill fleeing suspects, which is problematic.
I should add that as discussed above it may be the case that the officer did not shoot at Brown while he was fleeing, in which case the above is not relevant to this particular case.
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
He's a professor of Homeland Security whatever the hell that is. I assume it is what Eric Cartman aspires too. His argument also works for many other professions too.
"I'm a rapist, just submit and it will be over soon. You can file a complaint after."
"I'm a Priest, just relax it will be over soon. You can confess after."
"I'm a Sharia judge, the stoning will be over soon. You can, oh, never mind."
Those are silly irrelvant examples. The rapist and priest don't have any legal authority over you. And we don't have Sharia in this country so that's even more irrelevant.
A police officer does not have legal authority to use force upon you based upon you insulting them, but he essentially asserts the right to do exactly that.
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
I'll repeat myself. He urged people to report such conduct if they saw/experienced it. But do it AFTER any such event. Getting in an officer's face isn't going to do any good.
Just think about it. If an officer is violating your rights, do you think he's going to care if you start claiming them now and getting belligerent about it? He already knows he's doing it to begin with, and your pointing it out isn't going to do any good, or he wouldn't have done it to begin with. He's in a position of power right now and can do a lot of things to screw you up. You're just asking for trouble in this situation. Complain/report/protest afterwards to whoever you think needs to hear your story. But it's just common sense that getting in his face now isn't going to do you any good.
The Popehat post that GreenGoo cited is the best reply to this logic, IMO.
Though Popehat seems to be down now, at least for me.
Last edited by El Guapo on Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
That's exactly it. There are a lot of maybes. We don't know enough about this specific situation. So we can only speculate. But some things are universal. One of them is that fight-or-flight is not always conducive to rational or well thought-out actions. In trying to understand what happened (not in justifying it, mind you, just understanding it), we need to keep that in mind.
El Guapo wrote:Even while acknowledging that cops have to make quick and difficult calls, that can't be a license for unaccountability in matters of life or death. If you're going to excuse an officer shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect based a bunch of maybes and hypotheticals, you're going to wind up giving police officers a general license to shoot and kill fleeing suspects, which is problematic.
I should add that as discussed above it may be the case that the officer did not shoot at Brown while he was fleeing, in which case the above is not relevant to this particular case.
I'm not excusing them for makign the wrong decision that ends in someone's wrongful death. I'm saying it's not always a deliberate, conscious decision that results in someone's wrongful death.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
El Guapo wrote:
The Popehat post that GreenGoo cited is the best reply to this logic, IMO.
Though Popehat seems to be down now, at least for me.
They can complain about the NSA takedown AFTER the fact.
(although it's up for me)
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
That's exactly it. There are a lot of maybes. We don't know enough about this specific situation. So we can only speculate. But some things are universal. One of them is that fight-or-flight is not always conducive to rational or well thought-out actions. In trying to understand what happened (not in justifying it, mind you, just understanding it), we need to keep that in mind.
El Guapo wrote:Even while acknowledging that cops have to make quick and difficult calls, that can't be a license for unaccountability in matters of life or death. If you're going to excuse an officer shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect based a bunch of maybes and hypotheticals, you're going to wind up giving police officers a general license to shoot and kill fleeing suspects, which is problematic.
I should add that as discussed above it may be the case that the officer did not shoot at Brown while he was fleeing, in which case the above is not relevant to this particular case.
I'm not excusing them for makign the wrong decision that ends in someone's wrongful death. I'm saying it's not always a deliberate, conscious decision that results in someone's wrongful death.
I know, I'm just saying that while we have to acknowledge the difficult quick choices that officers have to make, that only goes so far (unless we want to effectively give officers the right to use deadly force essentially at their discretion).
El Guapo wrote:A police officer does not have legal authority to use force upon you based upon you insulting them, but he essentially asserts the right to do exactly that.
Please provide the relevant quote. I've reread the article and nowhere does he say that.
Here's what he actually says about what to do during a stop:
I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.
But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.
An average person cannot comprehend the risks and has no true understanding of a cop’s job. Hollywood and television stereotypes of the police are cartoons in which fearless super cops singlehandedly defeat dozens of thugs, shooting guns out of their hands. Real life is different. An average cop is always concerned with his or her safety and tries to control every encounter. That is how we are trained. While most citizens are courteous and law abiding, the subset of people we generally interact with everyday are not the genteel types. You don’t know what is in my mind when I stop you. Did I just get a radio call of a shooting moments ago? Am I looking for a murderer or an armed fugitive? For you, this might be a “simple” traffic stop, for me each traffic stop is a potentially dangerous encounter. Show some empathy for an officer’s safety concerns. Don’t make our job more difficult than it already is.
Community members deserve courtesy, respect and professionalism from their officers. Every person stopped by a cop should feel safe instead of feeling that their wellbeing is in jeopardy. Shouldn’t the community members extend the same courtesy to their officers and project that the officer’s safety is not threatened by their actions?
Now exactly where in there does he say that a cop has the authority to use force on you if you insult them? What he actually says is that the stop will get harder for you if you show anger and resentment, and that you will get hurt if you engage in a physical confrontation.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
I'll repeat myself. He urged people to report such conduct if they saw/experienced it. But do it AFTER any such event. Getting in an officer's face isn't going to do any good.
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
That's an opening paragraph and I think it's to make a point. And the main point is that doing these things can lead to trouble. Not that they will but that they can. His point is that if you avoid these things, nothing is going to happen (assuming you've not got a totally criminal cop). It's these things that oftentimes result in escalation on both sides. In the following paragraphs he elaborates what to actually do and expect during a stop.
You have to account for his entire article, not just the opening paragraph. If you think he's really saying this, then how do you account for the paragraphs I quoted?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Jag wrote:Except what he said is a clear violation of your constitutional rights. But yeah, nothing wrong with that. Just accept it.
Yep. He basically said if you value your safety, don't attempt to assert your civil rights, because....cop. And this guy is a law professor apparently? Rights that aren't actively protected eventually disappear as rights. Just ask the NRA.
I'll repeat myself. He urged people to report such conduct if they saw/experienced it. But do it AFTER any such event. Getting in an officer's face isn't going to do any good.
Just think about it.
No, you think about it.
I obviously did more than you did, since you cut off my quote and that's the only response you can give!
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
El Guapo wrote:Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
He also says that if *anything* happens during a stop, it's your (the citizen's) fault. You know who else blames the victim? Hitl...um, ISIS (putting the blame for the beheading on Obama, lol?) He pays some lip service to a police officer being at fault, but I doubt he even believes that, given that he believes a reasonable result of yelling at a police officer is either being shot, tasered, or pepper sprayed.
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
That's an opening paragraph and I think it's to make a point. And the main point is that doing these things can lead to trouble. Not that they will but that they can. His point is that if you avoid these things, nothing is going to happen (assuming you've not got a totally criminal cop). It's these things that oftentimes result in escalation on both sides. In the following paragraphs he elaborates what to actually do and expect during a stop.
You have to account for his entire article, not just the opening paragraph. If you think he's really saying this, then how do you account for the paragraphs I quoted?
You realize that the opening paragraph is part of the article, right, and was also typed by him? If he doesn't really mean to say that an officer might shoot or beat you for insulting him, then he shouldn't say it. There are lots of letters on the keyboard, he could choose to arrange them in a different order if that's not what he means.
His broader point (elucated in the paragraphs you quote) is that defying a police officer will usually end badly for the person involved. That's true, and not inconsistent with the part where he says that the "ending badly" part will at least sometimes involve the use of violence. That's reasonable and practical advice, but it's also fairly troubling.
El Guapo wrote:Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
He also says that if *anything* happens during a stop, it's your (the citizen's) fault. You know who else blames the victim? Hitl...um, ISIS (putting the blame for the beheading on Obama, lol?) He pays some lip service to a police officer being at fault, but I doubt he even believes that, given that he believes a reasonablerealistic result of yelling at a police officer is either being shot, tasered, or pepper sprayed.
El Guapo wrote:Right there. "If you don't want to get shot... don't call me names."
Strictly speaking he doesn't say that he has the legal right to do that in those circumstances, but he's saying that if you call him names, argue with him, etc. then you may get shot / pepper-sprayed. You can choose whether he's saying he has the authority to do that under those circumstances, or whether he's saying that he'll do something illegal in those circumstances. Neither of those are great.
He also says that if *anything* happens during a stop, it's your (the citizen's) fault. You know who else blames the victim? Hitl...um, ISIS (putting the blame for the beheading on Obama, lol?) He pays some lip service to a police officer being at fault, but I doubt he even believes that, given that he believes a reasonablerealistic result of yelling at a police officer is either being shot, tasered, or pepper sprayed.
Mortoned.
True, but I also feel he believes this is a reasonable (to him) and not unexpected result.
I don't really feel like arguing the nittygritty on that article because the entire premise and thesis of the article is the anti-thesis of what the US stands for. It's not home land of the free if "papers, please" results in "bad things" happening to the citizen if they do anything other than hand over their papers.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's absolutely realistic, practical advice. The issue with it is that it's problematic coming from a police officer. Because there are two sides to the equation - a citizen can usually avoid getting their ass kicked by the police by not mouthing off to them, that's totally true. But at the same time, the police officer can also control that and avoid that outcome by not beating someone who mouths off to them.
