Reconciliation for Police Force Mistakes?

[PetraG]

It will happen because cowards always kneel to the mob.

I think you were right to say that “eliminating private gun ownership isn’t going to happen in the US.” This is so true that whether or not it is “the problem” is almost a moot question.

We are the most heavily-armed private citizenry in the history of the world, with more than one firearm per adult. (Actually, I think it is up to more than one per person, regardless of age, but no matter, as slightly less than half of households have a gun.) We have been wary about having our guns taken away by the government since before we formed our government. I will not live to see the day when Americans give up all their guns. We will be the last large nation to do it, count on that.

This makes our task of protecting our people in law enforcement all the more difficult. It is the path we have chosen, though. A lot of people who work in law enforcement agree with private gun ownership in spite of the problems that this poses, though, so at least there is that. We have teachers who want students who can speak up and say what they think, too, in spite of the discipline problems that adds. Would we really want the alternative? If the people directly doing the work most impacted by greater freedoms in the people say “no, do not restrict these freedoms” maybe we ought to listen to them.

 

[StudentMI]

It’s all good. I really don’t want to argue. Like the OP, I just want everyone to address a widespread, systemic problem with positive, productive ideas. I don’t think it’s helpful, however, to deny the presence of police militarization, something that everyone from academics to the feds recognize as a real thing. Do you think it would help to outsource riot suppression to other armed forces?

Great post. Demilitarization is the most important step in my opinion. Go back to the days when cops didn’t display their guns but kept them hidden under jackets. Etc.

I do have to say and I hope it’s not off topic but outsourcing to the armed forces would be a terrible step in a very wrong direction. The police are already inculcated with a mindset that almost makes them see the neighborhoods they patrol as occupied territory. Bringing in forces who are trained to deal with occupied territories is just downright dangerous.

And don’t get me started on private security forces, an anarcho-capitalist pipe dream.

 

[Poet]

rjo8:

Imo the looters/rioters have no agenda and the protestors don’t have anything specific they want to accomplish, just emotion. There is no police force issue in America at large. Police killings of civilians continue to go down every year. I have been in favor of mandatory police body cameras. I think that would solve most if not all the issues.

This, if it is the predominant thought in America, leads to answering the question of what can be done for reconciliation with “nothing”.

Tribalism and “us against them” is what put us in this situation, and if it continues, will never allow us out of this situation.

What do you think the looters’ and rioters’ agenda is? What do you think they want? What do you think would lead them to stop?

What do you think should be done?

And ‘end racism’ is not an answer because there’s no real agreement on what ‘racism’ is. Be specific on what would make the people of this country, black and white, believe there is no longer ‘systemic racism.’ If such a thing exists, what specifically needs to be done to end it?

 

[Welshrabbit]

A lot of people who work in law enforcement agree with private gun ownership in spite of the problems that this poses, though, so at least there is that.

I have a love/hate relationship with the 2nd Amendment. I love the original intent. I hate that it makes enforcing the law a dangerous task.

 

[dscath]

What do you think the looters’ and rioters’ agenda is? What do you think they want? What do you think would lead them to stop?

Answer to Question 1: Rage

What do you think should be done?

Answer to question 2 and 3:

Exercise the the 2nd of the two greatest commandments, to love our neighbor, which would defuse rage.

what solutions do you propose?

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

I don’t know what would satisfy the peaceful protestors, but I would have no interest in satisfying looters/rioters/arsonists. They are criminals and thugs, and there is no justification for that kind of behavior, just as there is no justification for police brutality.

 

[blackforest]

Point well taken, but somebody has to deal with large crowds getting out of control. Is there an alternative to a militarized police force?

 

[Magnanimity]

it would be beneficial for both the public and the police to be de-armed

No, I don’t think so. The Court has held and will likely continue to hold that whenever a “suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,” that person can have deadly force used against him. (Graham v. Connor). Tennessee v. Garner put it like this, “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. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape” So, what’s the point of all this? It’s to say that if LEO’s are “de-armed” they would have little recourse against armed suspects to keep the community (or themselves) alive.

augment policies to encourage de-escalation when practical.

These policies (and trainings) are already present. One could say that there should be more, but that is generally true of every good thing in the world–there ought to be more of it.

other officers on scene should have an obligation to physically stop abuse occurring near them without fear of reprisal.

While this is true, context always matters. And the Court has repeatedly said, “With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: ‘Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,’ Johnson v. Glick, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” (Graham vs. Connor).

Often enough, attending officers are trying to ensure that the situation remains secure and do not feel at liberty to arm-chair quarterback the arresting officer. I’m not saying that that’s what happened with George Floyd. I’m just making the point that the Court resists (as we should) assessing officers’ actions while “in the peace of a judge’s chambers.”

 

[StudentMI]

Point well taken, but somebody has to deal with large crowds getting out of control. Is there an alternative to a militarized police force?

At the moment? Sadly not it seems. It would have to be a gradual demilitarization if it ever happens.

 

[PetraG]

I have a love/hate relationship with the 2nd Amendment. I love the original intent. I hate that it makes enforcing the law a dangerous task.

It does that. Still, I have to think that letting people think for themselves and say what they think and believe what they want, including that they are the equal to anyone else they may come across and that they have things to say that need to be heard and have a right to be free and to pursue happiness makes a country a lot more difficult to govern than just letting people carry firearms does.

Freedom is hard and it is dangerous. If God did not think the dangers and suffering and pain it brings are worth the good things it makes possible, God would not have given us free will and the opportunity to refuse cooperation with the divine plan in the first place.

But, on the other hand, God paid the price for making criminals possible in order to make saints possible. Hatred and prejudice, too, are possible only because love and understanding are possible.

 

[TC3033]

however, every Republican and conservative I’ve heard speak on the George Floyd tragedy has stated that the officer should be facing Murder One, and not Murder Three.

Can you point me to links / audio. I haven’t heard a single person say this (and I’m in Minnesota). Everyone I’ve heard has said it’s nearly impossible to go over 2 (and it is). How is anyone going to prove that officer woke up that morning with the plan to kill that man…?

The conservatives have also all said that they would have charged the other three immediately.

They couldn’t. Nobody can be accessory to murder 3. One thing to remember…the charges can always go up (which they eventually did).

Democrats ALONE have the power to charge murder one

Won’t happen.

charge the other three officers.

They did, once the charges were moved from 3 to 2.

 

[StudentMI]

Can you point me to links / audio.

Judge Napolitano on George Floyd's death: Why haven't the officers been arrested? | Fox News

Judge Andrew Napolitano: America is under attack from three deadly viruses | Fox News

Edited to add: Napolitano is the only Fox News personality I like.

 

[phil19034]

Can you point me to links / audio. I haven’t heard a single person say this (and I’m in Minnesota). Everyone I’ve heard has said it’s nearly impossible to go over 2 (and it is). How is anyone going to prove that officer woke up that morning with the plan to kill that man…?

Of couse you haven’t, because the left leaning media doesn’t want to show Republicans pushing for this cop to be punished.

Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (who was a prosecutor before serving in Congress) made a pretty good argument for Murder One.

Here is another video a few days later, where he decides it really should be Murder One. This is the best argument for Murder One.

Trey Gowdy reacts to ex-Minneapolis cop charged with 3rd degree murder, manslaughter: Took too long | Fox News Video

 

[TC3033]

TC3033:

Can you point me to links / audio.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-death-why-havent-officers-been-arrested

Judge Andrew Napolitano: America is under attack from three deadly viruses | Fox News

Edited to add: Napolitano is the only Fox News personality I like.

Nowhere in that video did he push for murder-one…and it’s over a week old. Since that video, all have been arrested.

 

[phil19034]

They couldn’t. Nobody can be accessory to murder 3. One thing to remember…the charges can always go up (which they eventually did).

That’s why it should have been murder 1 or 2 from the start.

 

[StudentMI]

Nowhere in that video did he push for murder-one…and it’s over a week old. Since that video, all have been arrested.

Oh I misread what you quoted in your post. Sorry.

Still, Napolitano!

 

[TC3033]

Of couse you haven’t, because the left leaning media doesn’t want to show Republicans pushing for this cop to be punished.

OK…I’ll watch the video (the one person that’s made a case for it…I guess), but from this point on, your’re hurting your credibility.

I live here, murder 1 was brought up instantly. Radio and TV here have been PLASTERED with why it most likely won’t happen by both the Hennipen CO, Ramsay CO and the state AG (and their right).

Here is another video a few days later, where he decides it really should be Murder One. This is the best argument for Murder One.

I don’t think so…but, like I said charges can always be raised.

That’s why it should have been murder 1 or 2 from the start.

No shot…I would have rather the County and State attorneys made sure they had a case BEFORE going 2 (or 1) vs. knee jerk reacting…swinging for the fences…then missing…needing to let these guys go and watching Minneapolis burn for another week. Sorry, pass…

They went 3 to make sure Chauven (sp?) could be arrested and then made sure they had a case against the other officers BEFORE raising the charges. That was the right way to go.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Of couse you haven’t, because the left leaning media doesn’t want to show Republicans pushing for this cop to be punished.

OK…I’ll watch the video (the one person that’s made a case for it…I guess), but from this point on, your’re hurting your credibility.

I live here, murder 1 was brought up instantly. Radio and TV here have been PLASTERED with why it most likely won’t happen by both the Hennipen CO, Ramsay CO and the state AG (and their right).

Here is another video a few days later, where he decides it really should be Murder One. This is the best argument for Murder One.

I don’t think so…but, like I said charges can always be raised.

That’s why it should have been murder 1 or 2 from the start.

No shot…I would have rather the County and State attorneys made sure they had a case BEFORE going 2 (or 1) vs. knee jerk reacting…swinging for the fences…then missing…needing to let these guys go and watching Minneapolis burn for another week. Sorry, pass…

They went 3 to make sure Chauven (sp?) could be arrested and then made sure they had a case against the other officers BEFORE raising the charges. That was the right way to go.

My point is that Republicans are pushing for all 4 to be convicted of murder and at least accessory to murder.

You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who is not outraged by those 4 cops.

 

[TC3033]

You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who is not outraged by those 4 cops.

You’ll be hard pressed to find ANYONE that isn’t.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who is not outraged by those 4 cops.

You’ll be hard pressed to find ANYONE that isn’t.

Exactly! That’s my point. But people on the far left want to call Trump a racist, etc and say people who support law & order defend criminal actions of bad cops, etc.