I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me

[styrgwillidar]

John Kerry, who on August 29, 2013, called Bashar al-Assad a “thug.”

bleacherreport.com/articles/897210-nhl-video-50-biggest-thugs-in-hockey-history

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535947/Racist-thug-white-supremacist-salute-leaving-court-admitting-wearing-Ku-Klux-Klan-outfit-YouTube-videos-jailed.html

Type in the phrase “Police thugs” and you’ll note that it’s a label designating behavior, not coor.

policethugs.com/ (sorry, a photo in this site is NSFW)
Lables numerous white cops as thugs

sott.net/article/274339-Young-female-woman-jogger-with-headphones-knocked-to-the-floor-arrested-by-Austin-police-thugs-because-she-didnt-hear-when-they-tried-to-ticket-her-for-jaywalking

endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why-have-police-in-america-turned-into-such-ruthless-thugs

fff.org/explore-freedom/article/policethugs-guns/

 

[Buckeyeboy]

However, I do not think its right for them to be able to use a dog around the outside of car, that dog is an ‘employee’ of the police dept, as people that have injured drug dogs, have been charged with assault on an officer, even though its a dog, and that dog IS SEARCHING, by means of sniffing around the car for drugs.

The sniff is not a search doctrine goes way back before auto decisions, from memory; Horton v. Goosecreek

No one has an expectation of privacy in air.

 

[Buckeyeboy]

The real purpose of the dog after someone has refused consent is to try to get probable cause.
If the dog indicates toward the car, they now have a reasonable suspicion and can search without consent.

.

Not RS to search, PC under Harris. RS pertains to other brief limited searches in the car.

 

[DrTaffy]

Can someone find me a news piece where white people are referred to as “thugs”? I can’t find even one

Racist thug who made white supremacist salute while leaving court after admitting to wearing Ku Klux Klan outfit in YouTube videos is jailed

 

[styrgwillidar]

Racist thug who made white supremacist salute while leaving court after admitting to wearing Ku Klux Klan outfit in YouTube videos is jailed

In addition to all the links to “police thugs” and hockey players as thugs and the other stuff I linked to, I can’t believe I forgot the commonly used term “Jackbooted thugs” as a reference to overbearing government raids by folks at agencies like the ATF, FBI, DEA etc. independent of color of the agents.

 

[numberonefan]

I find it very disturbing that morality doesn’t seem to be part of the discussion when police action is involved. The token response is “it was legal”. Since this is a catholic forum we should be considering what is moral and not what is legal. Abortion is morally wrong yet it is legal. The argument of “it was legal” is weak and has no place on these forums.

I would say that killing someone that is unarmed is always morally wrong. In this situation I would say it is especially wrong because it breaks the public trust with the police. Every human not just police officers have every responsibility to do everything they can to prevent the loss of human life, including walking away. This may not be the popular, or even what you are trained to do, but training and legality have no place in a moral decision.

Police departments are just one component of the corrupt government we have. Why do we distrust so many politicians yet blindly trust the police that they are telling the truth? The police should be under more scrutiny than your average citizen because we know power corrupts and they are given the power to destroy someones life. The police themselves have proven time and time again that they are unwilling to stand up and do the moral thing but instead close ranks around their own. Police do not have separate moral standards than the rest of the world. They have the exact same standards and should be held to them.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
I would say that killing someone that is unarmed is always morally wrong.
…

Really? Do you consider hands and feet to be weapons capable of lethal force? More folks are killed with hands and feet than with long guns (rifles/shotguns) in the US.

Does a woman have the right to resist with potentially lethal force an attempted rape? Do you consider rape to be serious bodily harm?

Do you have to submit to hand-to-hand conflict with someone significantly larger than yourself?

 

[numberonefan]

Really? Do you consider hands and feet to be weapons capable of lethal force? More folks are killed with hands and feet than with long guns (rifles/shotguns) in the US.

Does a woman have the right to resist with potentially lethal force an attempted rape? Do you consider rape to be serious bodily harm?

Do you have to submit to hand-to-hand conflict with someone significantly larger than yourself?

It wont allow me to edit the previous post so here is the edit. I had all of this in a previous post and had to rewrite from memory.

I would say that a police officer killing someone that is unarmed is morally wrong (except in cases where they are not the instigator of the situation). In this situation I would say it is especially wrong because it breaks the public trust with the police. Every human not just police officers have every responsibility to do everything they can to prevent the loss of human life, including walking away. This may not be the popular, or even what you are trained to do, but training and legality have no place in a moral decision.

Obviously someone blindly jumping you and trying to beat you to death you are not the instigator, nor in a situation of attempted rape. However, the moment someone attempts to run away you are no longer morally justified. If you then instigate the situation by bringing “obey me or die” into the situation then you are now in the wrong. Like I said walking away is always an option. In this instance even if the unconfirmed reports of the attack on the officer are true, the moment the suspect runs away the moral justification is gone. I am not talking legality. I am talking morality.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I will edit the post as it was the second time I wrote it since the first one did not show up and the second time I did not read through.

I am a little confused as to how you could possibly only have that as a comment though.

Well, I generally agree that the police should be held to the same or higher standards than other civilians. I don’t think they should have access to weapons that aren’t available to other civilians.

But, I do think that saying simply because someone was unarmed that it was impossible for them to present a serious threat is simplistic.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I will edit the post as it was the second time I wrote it since the first one did not show up and the second time I did not read through.

I am a little confused as to how you could possibly only have that as a comment though.

Well, I generally agree that the police should be held to the same or higher standards than other civilians. I don’t think they should have access to weapons that aren’t available to other civilians.

But, I do think that saying simply because someone was unarmed that it was impossible for them to present a serious threat is simplistic.

 

[numberonefan]

Well, I generally agree that the police should be held to the same or higher standards than other civilians. I don’t think they should have access to weapons that aren’t available to other civilians.

But, I do think that saying simply because someone was unarmed that it was impossible for them to present a serious threat is simplistic.

I agree that even my edit is somewhat simplistic. Creating a hard line like this forces us to come up with solutions that do not take a life. Currently what I hear is the officer needs to feel he is immediate danger. That is so vague it could mean anything.

In life we have to be continually improving upon what we do to make things better.

I think that the Powell shooting of the man that was armed with a knife was potentially an even worse example of the lack of morality in police policy.

 

[styrgwillidar]

It wont allow me to edit the previous post so here is the edit. I had all of this in a previous post and had to rewrite from memory.

I would say that a police officer killing someone that is unarmed is morally wrong (except in cases where they are not the instigator of the situation). In this situation I would say it is especially wrong because it breaks the public trust with the police. Every human not just police officers have every responsibility to do everything they can to prevent the loss of human life, including walking away. This may not be the popular, or even what you are trained to do, but training and legality have no place in a moral decision.

Obviously someone blindly jumping you and trying to beat you to death you are not the instigator, nor in a situation of attempted rape. However, the moment someone attempts to run away you are no longer morally justified. If you then instigate the situation by bringing “obey me or die” into the situation then you are now in the wrong. Like I said walking away is always an option. In this instance even if the unconfirmed reports of the attack on the officer are true, the moment the suspect runs away the moral justification is gone. I am not talking legality. I am talking morality.

Well, there’s a big problem right now in referring to the current incident with Brown/Wilson in Ferguson because all of the facts are in dispute. Witnesses have given contradictory statements as to whether he was running from the officer or towards him when the shooting started and continued. There are contadictory statements as to whether he had his hands in the air. There are contradictory statements as to what Brown said. What isn’t disputed is that Brown/Wilson altercation started with the officer telling them to get out of the street, than a shoving match at the police car. I’m with-holding any judgement in the Brown case until the facts are well-established-- I jumped to judgement way too early in prior incidents.

So, on principle. I don’t believe the police should shoot at a fleeing suspect. I’m with you. Now, should that include murderers/violent offenders trying to flee the scene of an attack? Folks who will presumably go on to hurt others? If you believe that government has a duty to protect the citizens from known threats-- how else does a single officer keep a fleeing suspect from getting away? Ok, the law is that the police have no obligation to protect an individual, we are supposed to protect ourselves-- but should the police simply allow violent criminals to flee, is that in the public’s interest? Is it moral to let the serial killer go simply because they turn and run, knowing they’ll kill again? A petty thief or jaywalker I think it’s pretty clear that it shouldn’t involve shooting but what level of force should be used? You could say the force of numbers and physically force a person to the ground with less lethal means- taser, baton, pepper spray. But folks do die in those incidents as well. Physical confrontation and application of force isn’t pretty no matter how you apply it.

None of us being mind readers, we can’t know for sure how far our opponent is willing to take it. Inside of 21 feet, a person can get to an armed officer more quickly than he can respond with a weapon. Do you believe that the police should be forced to rely on hand-to-hand skills no matter how big the opponent? No matter how small the officer?

We are very much in agreement in holding officers to a high standard. That application of force should be within moral bounds, the laws should be based on moral principles. I think it is reasonable to allow an officer to use lethal force if a similarly trained officer in similar circumnstance would reasonably it was necessary to prevent grevious bodily harm to themselves or others.

 

[styrgwillidar]

It wont allow me to edit the previous post so here is the edit. I had all of this in a previous post and had to rewrite from memory.

I would say that a police officer killing someone that is unarmed is morally wrong (except in cases where they are not the instigator of the situation). In this situation I would say it is especially wrong because it breaks the public trust with the police. Every human not just police officers have every responsibility to do everything they can to prevent the loss of human life, including walking away. This may not be the popular, or even what you are trained to do, but training and legality have no place in a moral decision.

Obviously someone blindly jumping you and trying to beat you to death you are not the instigator, nor in a situation of attempted rape. However, the moment someone attempts to run away you are no longer morally justified. If you then instigate the situation by bringing “obey me or die” into the situation then you are now in the wrong. Like I said walking away is always an option. In this instance even if the unconfirmed reports of the attack on the officer are true, the moment the suspect runs away the moral justification is gone. I am not talking legality. I am talking morality.

Well, there’s a big problem right now in referring to the current incident with Brown/Wilson in Ferguson because all of the facts are in dispute. Witnesses have given contradictory statements as to whether he was running from the officer or towards him when the shooting started and continued. There are contadictory statements as to whether he had his hands in the air. There are contradictory statements as to what Brown said. What isn’t disputed is that Brown/Wilson altercation started with the officer telling them to get out of the street, than a shoving match at the police car. I’m with-holding any judgement in the Brown case until the facts are well-established-- I jumped to judgement way too early in prior incidents.

So, on principle. I don’t believe the police should shoot at a fleeing suspect. I’m with you. Now, should that include murderers/violent offenders trying to flee the scene of an attack? Folks who will presumably go on to hurt others? If you believe that government has a duty to protect the citizens from known threats-- how else does a single officer keep a fleeing suspect from getting away? Ok, the law is that the police have no obligation to protect an individual, we are supposed to protect ourselves-- but should the police simply allow violent criminals to flee, is that in the public’s interest? Is it moral to let the serial killer go simply because they turn and run, knowing they’ll kill again? A petty thief or jaywalker I think it’s pretty clear that it shouldn’t involve shooting but what level of force should be used? You could say the force of numbers and physically force a person to the ground with less lethal means- taser, baton, pepper spray. But folks do die in those incidents as well. Physical confrontation and application of force isn’t pretty no matter how you apply it.

None of us being mind readers, we can’t know for sure how far our opponent is willing to take it. Inside of 21 feet, a person can get to an armed officer more quickly than he can respond with a weapon. Do you believe that the police should be forced to rely on hand-to-hand skills no matter how big the opponent? No matter how small the officer?

We are very much in agreement in holding officers to a high standard. That application of force should be within moral bounds, the laws should be based on moral principles. I think it is reasonable to allow an officer to use lethal force if a similarly trained officer in similar circumnstance would reasonably believe it was necessary to prevent grevious bodily harm to themselves or others.

 

[numberonefan]

Well, there’s a big problem right now in referring to the current incident with Brown/Wilson in Ferguson because all of the facts are in dispute. Witnesses have given contradictory statements as to whether he was running from the officer or towards him when the shooting started and continued. There are contadictory statements as to whether he had his hands in the air. There are contradictory statements as to what Brown said. What isn’t disputed is that Brown/Wilson altercation started with the officer telling them to get out of the street, than a shoving match at the police car. I’m with-holding any judgement in the Brown case until the facts are well-established-- I jumped to judgement way too early in prior incidents.

So, on principle. I don’t believe the police should shoot at a fleeing suspect. I’m with you. Now, should that include murderers/violent offenders trying to flee the scene of an attack? Folks who will presumably go on to hurt others? If you believe that government has a duty to protect the citizens from known threats-- how else does a single officer keep a fleeing suspect from getting away? Ok, the law is that the police have no obligation to protect an individual, we are supposed to protect ourselves-- but should the police simply allow violent criminals to flee, is that in the public’s interest? Is it moral to let the serial killer go simply because they turn and run, knowing they’ll kill again? A petty thief or jaywalker I think it’s pretty clear that it shouldn’t involve shooting but what level of force should be used? You could say the force of numbers and physically force a person to the ground with less lethal means- taser, baton, pepper spray. But folks do die in those incidents as well. Physical confrontation and application of force isn’t pretty no matter how you apply it.

None of us being mind readers, we can’t know for sure how far our opponent is willing to take it. Inside of 21 feet, a person can get to an armed officer more quickly than he can respond with a weapon. Do you believe that the police should be forced to rely on hand-to-hand skills no matter how big the opponent? No matter how small the officer?

We are very much in agreement in holding officers to a high standard. That application of force should be within moral bounds, the laws should be based on moral principles. I think it is reasonable to allow an officer to use lethal force if a similarly trained officer in similar circumnstance would reasonably believe it was necessary to prevent grevious bodily harm to themselves or others.

This is why policy is so important and the public needs to know what that policy is. If policy is secret from the citizens then how can they judge whether or not the police are following it or whether they agree with it in order to change it? The police have taken it upon themselves to create policy in these situations and not be transparent about what that policy is. The line of just trust us because our job is hard is not good enough.

 

[styrgwillidar]

This is why policy is so important and the public needs to know what that policy is. If policy is secret from the citizens then how can they judge whether or not the police are following it or whether they agree with it in order to change it? The police have taken it upon themselves to create policy in these situations and not be transparent about what that policy is. The line of just trust us because our job is hard is not good enough.

Agreed. Most larger cities now publish their policies and have civilian boards review shootings, which I think is a good thing. In most jurisdictions, police don’t create policy although they obviously make recommendations to the city council/mayor or whoever the oversight body is, who’ll normally just go along on the mundane stuff.

Unfortunately, most applications of deadly force are a judgement call. No one’s a mind reader, and in the aftermath the standard is normally, what would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances? You’re pulled over and upset because you’re on your way to the hospital cause your kid was in an accident. You jump out of your car and rush towards the officer to explain. Makes sense to you, he may see it differently. Folks in a trial/administration board get to break it down slow time. Pretty subjective. Plus, folks without much experience or education can have a very unrealistic expectation of what a use-of-force encounter is like. Here’s a website with timings for initiators to draw and fire compared to reactors to respond. Considering this is a best-case time for the person reacting (from trained officers simply reacting to a light signal vice a more complex scenario type decision) and worst case for the initiator (suspect based on untrainend college students), it’s pretty telling. Officer’s are behind in an engagement with an armed person. We’re talking thirds of seconds or less for lethal actions to be carried out. Try and react to that…
forcescience.org/demos.html

Now, couple that with trying to reconstruct an incident after it happens. Bad enough in a simple incident due to the normal contradictions/inconsistencies between witness statements. Layer on top of that a bunch of emotion, mis-information, confusion, posturing for or by the media and it becomes a mess very quickly.

 

[redbaron162]

A few points:

1. Saying you cannot shot someone who is unarmed is not only absurd it is not the law. According to the law (Ga State) you can use deadly force to protect yourself or a third person from deadly force, or to stop a forcible felony.

Note that there is no mention of a weapon. Granted usually deadly force is done with a weapon but in no means is that always the case. Other factors should be taken into consideration when it comes to an “unarmed” attacker. In addition it includes stopping a forcible felony. For example it is justified to shoot someone who is attempting to rape someone if that is reasonable and necessary to stop it.

1. You really don’t know if they are unarmed. They may be running at you to attack you and pull a knife at the last second.
2. You have no idea how much training this person could have, they may be unarmed but if they are a trained martial arts expert they could still easily kill you.
3. Relative Size / strength: If the attacker is a 300 LB 6’8" huge linebacker and you a skinny 150 lb person unless you got some crazy tricks up your sleeve that person could easily pummel you to death.

All police are taught the same thing when it comes to deadly force: “Stop the threat”. Note it does not say kill the person or anything like that but stop the threat. As soon as the person is not a threat all force is over with.

I cannot help but see the parallel to the CCC:

CCC 2265 states that, “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”

If you are on top of me pummeling me and I am starting to black out it is legal, not only for the police, but any person to shoot them. One can only assume that if they are willing to beat you unconscious then they very well could beat you to death since you cannot stop them at that point.

 

[numberonefan]

Agreed. Most larger cities now publish their policies and have civilian boards review shootings, which I think is a good thing. In most jurisdictions, police don’t create policy although they obviously make recommendations to the city council/mayor or whoever the oversight body is, who’ll normally just go along on the mundane stuff.

Unfortunately, most applications of deadly force are a judgement call. No one’s a mind reader, and in the aftermath the standard is normally, what would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances? You’re pulled over and upset because you’re on your way to the hospital cause your kid was in an accident. You jump out of your car and rush towards the officer to explain. Makes sense to you, he may see it differently. Folks in a trial/administration board get to break it down slow time. Pretty subjective. Plus, folks without much experience or education can have a very unrealistic expectation of what a use-of-force encounter is like. Here’s a website with timings for initiators to draw and fire compared to reactors to respond. Considering this is a best-case time for the person reacting (from trained officers simply reacting to a light signal vice a more complex scenario type decision) and worst case for the initiator (suspect based on untrainend college students), it’s pretty telling. Officer’s are behind in an engagement with an armed person. We’re talking thirds of seconds or less for lethal actions to be carried out. Try and react to that…
forcescience.org/demos.html

Now, couple that with trying to reconstruct an incident after it happens. Bad enough in a simple incident due to the normal contradictions/inconsistencies between witness statements. Layer on top of that a bunch of emotion, mis-information, confusion, posturing for or by the media and it becomes a mess very quickly.

You are right nobody is a mind reader. That is why an officer should not be permitted to use deadly force unless the threat is real not just perceived. Real needs to be a quantifiable thing. If you thought someone had a gun that is not good enough. Our goal should be keeping everyone alive.

 

[pnewton]

You are right nobody is a mind reader. That is why an officer should not be permitted to use deadly force unless the threat is real not just perceived. Real needs to be a quantifiable thing. If you thought someone had a gun that is not good enough. Our goal should be keeping everyone alive.

This will not keep police alive. This will get them killed. To accomplish this, there would need to be a policy to only shoot after being shot. Civilian review boards are fine, as long as they understand that they are not going to die for making a bad decision after due deliberation and the police officer they are reviewing can die from a bad decision made within seconds. These public forums convince me that most citizens are too ignorant to serve on a review board. Either specialized training would be needed or they would need to seek those who have served as police.

 

[redbaron162]

One side note that many people seem to have a problem understanding.

When the police are called out to a disturbance they have a obligation to deal with it until peace is restored. The police do not have the option of just leaving when the public safety is in danger.

For example someone mentioned the Powell shooting, you have an aggressive person walking around with a knife and then coming at the police with it (Firstly I don’t know why anyone would think that unjustified, if you come at someone with a knife then what else do you expect them to do?)

The police cannot run from a situation, they can actually be sued and have criminal charges filled against them if they leave a situation that is dangerous and puts others in danger. The police by law have to use what force is reasonable and necessary to stop the threat and restore peace. They do not have the option of just leaving. Yes they cannot use unreasonable force but they cannot refuse to act.

Again I would add on that all of these decisions have to be made on the spot with limited information and the human element such as emotions and danger are all present. The office with only the training he has had (which is usually the bare minimum due to funding and staffing constraints) and his experience has to make judgment calls in a second that lawyers will be poring over for years.

 

[numberonefan]

A few points:

1. Saying you cannot shot someone who is unarmed is not only absurd it is not the law. According to the law (Ga State) you can use deadly force to protect yourself or a third person from deadly force, or to stop a forcible felony.

Note that there is no mention of a weapon. Granted usually deadly force is done with a weapon but in no means is that always the case. Other factors should be taken into consideration when it comes to an “unarmed” attacker. In addition it includes stopping a forcible felony. For example it is justified to shoot someone who is attempting to rape someone if that is reasonable and necessary to stop it.

1. You really don’t know if they are unarmed. They may be running at you to attack you and pull a knife at the last second.
2. You have no idea how much training this person could have, they may be unarmed but if they are a trained martial arts expert they could still easily kill you.
3. Relative Size / strength: If the attacker is a 300 LB 6’8" huge linebacker and you a skinny 150 lb person unless you got some crazy tricks up your sleeve that person could easily pummel you to death.

All police are taught the same thing when it comes to deadly force: “Stop the threat”. Note it does not say kill the person or anything like that but stop the threat. As soon as the person is not a threat all force is over with.

I cannot help but see the parallel to the CCC:

CCC 2265 states that, “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”

If you are on top of me pummeling me and I am starting to black out it is legal, not only for the police, but any person to shoot them. One can only assume that if they are willing to beat you unconscious then they very well could beat you to death since you cannot stop them at that point.

Notice the word moral was nowhere to be found in your response. Like my post said. I could care less about what is legal. I care about what is moral. Based on your response I should be able to kill anyone that shows aggression towards me because I have no idea whether their intentions are good or not. Is this really how we want our society to be run? Oh you are running towards me for help, well you may have a hidden knife so… 11 shots later… dead. This belief is what is absurd.

I think you maybe did not read everything I posted based on your response…