Police brutality and police reform (US)
But like I said earlier, just look the other way if a juror seems to lie under oath about his views and activity. It takes one juror to derail, so when we accept this logic, it won't be very hard to make sure the Chauvins of the world walk free.
Not in a single one of my posts have I said his ideology is what is in question. The insistence to pretend like this is the issue and refuse to even acknowledge that this could be about anything else speaks volumes.
But like I said earlier, just look the other way if a juror seems to lie under oath about his views and activity. It takes one juror to derail, so when we accept this logic, it won't be very hard to make sure the Chauvins of the world walk free.
But like I said earlier, just look the other way if a juror seems to lie under oath about his views and activity. It takes one juror to derail, so when we accept this logic, it won't be very hard to make sure the Chauvins of the world walk free.
Shooting once is certainly a reasonable response to the type of threat that man posed. It is a fear based response that makes him 'empty the clip'.
Again though cops should not be shooting at all if they do not perceive an immediate deadly threat to themselves or others. So shooting to wound is not reasonable in that situation as you allow that deadly threat, even if hit, to finish the job.
So in all these cases where we ask 'could he not shoot to wound instead' I am afraid is because we perceive a situation where the person was not posing that immediate deadly threat, and yet we are somehow being conditioned to thinking that shooting is an acceptable response if only it had been to wound instead. We need to reject that thinking. These type of shots, the majority that we see, should not be being taken at all.
I know this video was shown prior but I think it is a great example.
Compare this guy to prybar carrying homeless guy. Clearly machete man is far more dangerous.
"Do you think that man would have survived in America?"
"NO, no he would not have survived."
CONFIRMED!
Again though cops should not be shooting at all if they do not perceive an immediate deadly threat to themselves or others. So shooting to wound is not reasonable in that situation as you allow that deadly threat, even if hit, to finish the job.
So in all these cases where we ask 'could he not shoot to wound instead' I am afraid is because we perceive a situation where the person was not posing that immediate deadly threat, and yet we are somehow being conditioned to thinking that shooting is an acceptable response if only it had been to wound instead. We need to reject that thinking. These type of shots, the majority that we see, should not be being taken at all.
I know this video was shown prior but I think it is a great example.
Compare this guy to prybar carrying homeless guy. Clearly machete man is far more dangerous.
"Do you think that man would have survived in America?"
"NO, no he would not have survived."
CONFIRMED!
This is a perfect example of the 'Comply or Die' mentality.
This could become an important and ground breaking judgement if it was to become precedent.
Of course the officer can always use the '...I was afraid if i did not kill right then ... then he could have done something in the next seconds, minutes or hours that would have jeopardized my life' as a defense and it is almost impossible on that standard to convict a cop as history ahs shown.
I have always said that standard is wrong.
The standard needs to be 'an identified real and immediate threat' and not just the fear of a future one.
Sure there may be some debate and jury deliberations on the standard I put forth but at least it allows the jury to consider it another way other than telling them to consider if '.. a cop could reasonably fear a future bad result' and saying 'that then is reason to acquit'.
...“We are in the first stages of shock,” the Huntsville police chief, Mark McMurray, said in a statement. “While we thank the jury for their service in this difficult case, I do not believe Officer Darby is a murderer. Officers are forced to make split-second decisions every day, and Officer Darby believed his life and the lives of other officers were in danger.”
Prosecutors said the evidence showed that the first officer on the scene, Genisha Pegues, had been trying to help Mr. Parker when Officer Darby showed up. Officer Darby, who was 25 and had been on the force for about 18 months, shot Mr. Parker 11 seconds after entering his house, according to Martin Weinberg, a lawyer who represents Mr. Parker’s family....
...“In this particular case, there was zero hostility or aggression by Mr. Parker when the officers arrived,” the Madison County district attorney, Robert L. Broussard, said at a news conference. Yet Officer Darby’s response was “off the charts,” he said.
“The facts of the case bore out that there was nothing justified about this encounter with Mr. Parker, and justice was served,” Mr. Broussard said.
Officers called to Mr. Parker’s house found him “suicidal” and holding a gun, the police said in a statement in August 2018. After Mr. Parker disregarded several orders to drop his weapon, Officer Darby fatally shot him, the police said....
...Officer Pegues had entered with her gun pointed down and found Mr. Parker sitting on a couch with a gun to his head, according to the lawsuit. She had been talking to him when Officer Darby arrived about five minutes later, according to the lawsuit.
Officer Darby began screaming at Officer Pegues while he was still in the front yard, according to the lawsuit, telling her to point her gun at Mr. Parker because “he can shoot you!” Officer Darby then repeatedly yelled at Mr. Parker to put his gun down before firing a single shot that killed Mr. Parker, the lawsuit states...
...At Officer Darby’s trial, Officer Pegues testified that she had never felt that Mr. Parker was a threat, and a prosecutor argued that Officer Darby had been the initial aggressor, according to WSFA, a local television station.
Officer Darby’s lawyer, Robert Tuten, contended that Officer Darby had not been the initial aggressor and had been protecting not only himself but his fellow officers, WFSA reported. After the verdict on Friday, Mr. Tuten vowed to appeal...
“He just asked for help,” Mr. Parks said. “He wanted help, and what ended up in a situation where he asked for help turned out terribly.”
This could become an important and ground breaking judgement if it was to become precedent.
Of course the officer can always use the '...I was afraid if i did not kill right then ... then he could have done something in the next seconds, minutes or hours that would have jeopardized my life' as a defense and it is almost impossible on that standard to convict a cop as history ahs shown.
I have always said that standard is wrong.
The standard needs to be 'an identified real and immediate threat' and not just the fear of a future one.
Sure there may be some debate and jury deliberations on the standard I put forth but at least it allows the jury to consider it another way other than telling them to consider if '.. a cop could reasonably fear a future bad result' and saying 'that then is reason to acquit'.
Alabama Police Officer Is Convicted of Murdering a Suicidal Man https://nyti.ms/2RyK78n
Prosecutors said the evidence showed that the first officer on the scene, Genisha Pegues, had been trying to help Mr. Parker when Officer Darby showed up. Officer Darby, who was 25 and had been on the force for about 18 months, shot Mr. Parker 11 seconds after entering his house, according to Martin Weinberg, a lawyer who represents Mr. Parker’s family....
...“In this particular case, there was zero hostility or aggression by Mr. Parker when the officers arrived,” the Madison County district attorney, Robert L. Broussard, said at a news conference. Yet Officer Darby’s response was “off the charts,” he said.
“The facts of the case bore out that there was nothing justified about this encounter with Mr. Parker, and justice was served,” Mr. Broussard said.
Officers called to Mr. Parker’s house found him “suicidal” and holding a gun, the police said in a statement in August 2018. After Mr. Parker disregarded several orders to drop his weapon, Officer Darby fatally shot him, the police said....
...Officer Pegues had entered with her gun pointed down and found Mr. Parker sitting on a couch with a gun to his head, according to the lawsuit. She had been talking to him when Officer Darby arrived about five minutes later, according to the lawsuit.
Officer Darby began screaming at Officer Pegues while he was still in the front yard, according to the lawsuit, telling her to point her gun at Mr. Parker because “he can shoot you!” Officer Darby then repeatedly yelled at Mr. Parker to put his gun down before firing a single shot that killed Mr. Parker, the lawsuit states...
...At Officer Darby’s trial, Officer Pegues testified that she had never felt that Mr. Parker was a threat, and a prosecutor argued that Officer Darby had been the initial aggressor, according to WSFA, a local television station.
Officer Darby’s lawyer, Robert Tuten, contended that Officer Darby had not been the initial aggressor and had been protecting not only himself but his fellow officers, WFSA reported. After the verdict on Friday, Mr. Tuten vowed to appeal...
“He just asked for help,” Mr. Parks said. “He wanted help, and what ended up in a situation where he asked for help turned out terribly.”
Who were the two guys in the thumbnail who were tasked with confronting a machette-weilding insane person? I guess those with least seniority - or those who could run the fastest? Is the idea that this was somehow a good technique because none of the police were stabbed or killed? Seems pretty results-oriented thinking. And how many resources were required at the end - like 20 officers?
That said, I would not indict or blame cops in that spot that shot this man when he walked menacingly towards them with the lethal weapon in hand. He is posing a direct and immediate threat.
That said you have to step back from that context a bit.
The police felt comfortable in approaching and getting within that immediate threat zone, because they have the proper training and equipment and it looks like they had secured the scene in a way that kept other potential innocent victims from harm.
If/when the cops have a situation like that where they are in control of the zone and can control whether they are in the zone of threat, I think they need to use every opportunity to disengage and back off and try de-escalation techniques.
So in that prior video with the homeless man, where there was no reason for the cop to hold his ground and then put the man to a 'comply or die' test, he could have retreated, kept some distance and waited for the very close by incoming help to arrive that might have had tasers or other non lethal restraints.
If the man was threatening to escape contain and the cop could see others or himself at immediate threat then, of course he can confront and kill, if necessary.
I struggle to see how the reported answer of "no" on the questionnaire question can be anything but dishonest, but I said "seems" for a reason.
Most articles I have seen have legal experts who acknowledge that it should be explored by the court and that it raises questions that need to be answered, which seems more than sensible to me.
Most articles I have seen have legal experts who acknowledge that it should be explored by the court and that it raises questions that need to be answered, which seems more than sensible to me.
I struggle to see how the reported answer of "no" on the questionnaire question can be anything but dishonest, but I said "seems" for a reason.
Most articles I have seen have legal experts who acknowledge that it should be explored by the court and that it raises questions that need to be answered, which seems more than sensible to me.
Most articles I have seen have legal experts who acknowledge that it should be explored by the court and that it raises questions that need to be answered, which seems more than sensible to me.
I think that premise can be accurate and fair to say regardless of the specifics of this case (whether it is a lie or not).
Agreed. What happens in the legal system must be above board, fair and proper. If not, it will undermine whatever political activities take place outside the courts.
And yes, there is an irony to it if what is happening in the courts is about fairness to begin with. But correcting injustice with injustice will almost certainly fail.
And yes, there is an irony to it if what is happening in the courts is about fairness to begin with. But correcting injustice with injustice will almost certainly fail.
This officer Pegues character seems like a bad apple and not fit for duty. I'm sure she'll be weeded out sooner rather than later.
I have little doubt Chauvin is guilty of a horrific crime, keeping his knee on someone’s neck for 7 minutes, and continuing to do so after they lose consciousness, after you know they have no pulse, there are other officers nearby and the victim is handcuffed, this speaks volumes.
But I’ll never accept that it is okay for a juror to lie under oath about issues of impartiality. The view that it is okay for the legal process to play loose with basic principles of justice, as long as the endgame is «agreeable to me» is part of the reason why people like Chauvin are not stopped before things go horribly wrong.
But I’ll never accept that it is okay for a juror to lie under oath about issues of impartiality. The view that it is okay for the legal process to play loose with basic principles of justice, as long as the endgame is «agreeable to me» is part of the reason why people like Chauvin are not stopped before things go horribly wrong.
I know we're probably going to have to go through the whole charade again and maybe a new jury clears him of murder 2 but he's going down all the same.
Sucks that sick people that think Chauvin getting off is some "own the libs" moment get to spew their BS all over again.
Who were the two guys in the thumbnail who were tasked with confronting a machette-weilding insane person? I guess those with least seniority - or those who could run the fastest? Is the idea that this was somehow a good technique because none of the police were stabbed or killed? Seems pretty results-oriented thinking. And how many resources were required at the end - like 20 officers?
As for resources. Yes we put a lot of resources into not killng people in the UK. It's also standard practice to get lots of police to an incident that looks like it might escalate because that often deters any (further) violence even though the extra police dont do anything much. Good use of resources although open to abuse as well.
He went to a rally in DC to commemorate MLK’s march on Washington. It wasn’t in Minneapolis, it wasn’t an anti-police march. I mean, if you want to argue that being pro-MLK makes you too biased to be a juror, we’ll have some pretty wild jury selections.
however, inadvertently this a good reason to abolish the police and really just abolish Amerikkka. when you cant go to a demonstration for basic rights bc it can be deemed anti-police then its time to admit this is a shithole country beyond repair. I am positive they are combing thru juror facebooks for copaganda nor combing thru their clothes drawers for blue lives matter shirts.
its legal to support a fascist authoritarian murderous society but its de facto illegal to oppose it.
It’s not lost on me that the folks here who love namechecking MLK sure don’t seem to trust people who turn out to MLK rallies.
Weird question but is this guy still the only juror who has come public?
Or perhaps the case is a bit more complicated than you want it to be.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-trial-juror/
Meh
I know we're probably going to have to go through the whole charade again and maybe a new jury clears him of murder 2 but he's going down all the same.
Sucks that sick people that think Chauvin getting off is some "own the libs" moment get to spew their BS all over again.
I know we're probably going to have to go through the whole charade again and maybe a new jury clears him of murder 2 but he's going down all the same.
Sucks that sick people that think Chauvin getting off is some "own the libs" moment get to spew their BS all over again.
As for those people, I think they don't really need much to spew their BS. They'd just make something up.
Or perhaps the case is a bit more complicated than you want it to be.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-trial-juror/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-trial-juror/
I don't think any flawless legal system exists. I think the US is a good one on principle. Jury systems have flaws, but so do systems that vest more of that power in the seat of the judge(s).
Is it just me, or does it seem like the ideas of impartiality and bias as it pertains to juries is being misunderstood/misinterpreted by a lot of people? Not necessarily posters in this thread (although that may be the case as well), but in the bigger discourse about the Chauvin trial. Everyone has biases - the jury selection process is never going to eliminate that. The process allows the defense and the prosecution to reject those people they see as having the most potential to have biases which could produce a verdict they don't want. That doesn't mean none of the eventual jurors will have biases which will affect their decisions. And it also doesn't mean that the jury should become public fodder for continual "was juror X biased?" debates.
That said, when things are found afterwards, like the possibility a juror lied during questioning in the selection process, it should be investigated. But even if a juror did so, that doesn't necessarily change anything - it should be a high bar to vacate/overturn a verdict.
What are the differences between the UK and US system that make the the latter so terrible? Sincere question - I don't have an opinion either way. I've always understood that the US, UK, Canada, and likely many other democracies to have fairly similar processes for jury selection, although I wouldn't be surprised if the way each of them are implemented have significant differences.
That said, when things are found afterwards, like the possibility a juror lied during questioning in the selection process, it should be investigated. But even if a juror did so, that doesn't necessarily change anything - it should be a high bar to vacate/overturn a verdict.
What are the differences between the UK and US system that make the the latter so terrible? Sincere question - I don't have an opinion either way. I've always understood that the US, UK, Canada, and likely many other democracies to have fairly similar processes for jury selection, although I wouldn't be surprised if the way each of them are implemented have significant differences.
Except it really isn't. I wasn't being facetious earlier, "the cops should stop executing black people" isn't a view that should disqualify people from serving on juries when a cop executes a black guy.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the ideas of impartiality and bias as it pertains to juries being misunderstood/misinterpreted by a lot of people? Not necessarily posters in this thread (although that may be the case as well), but in the bigger discourse about the Chauvin trial. Everyone has bias - the jury selection process is never going to eliminate that. The process allows the defense and the prosecution to reject those people they see as having the most potential to have biases which could produce a verdict they don't want. That doesn't mean none of the eventual jurors will have biases which will affect their decisions. And it also doesn't mean that the jury should become public fodder for continual "was juror X biased?" debates.
That said, when things are found afterwards, like the possibility a juror lied during questioning in the selection process, it should be investigated. But even if a juror did so, that doesn't necessarily change anything - it should be a high bar to vacate/overturn a verdict.
What are the differences between the UK and US system that make the the latter so terrible? Sincere question - I don't have an opinion either way. I've always understood that the US, UK, Canada, and likely many other democracies to have fairly similar processes for jury selection, although I wouldn't be surprised if the way each of them are implemented have significant differences.
That said, when things are found afterwards, like the possibility a juror lied during questioning in the selection process, it should be investigated. But even if a juror did so, that doesn't necessarily change anything - it should be a high bar to vacate/overturn a verdict.
What are the differences between the UK and US system that make the the latter so terrible? Sincere question - I don't have an opinion either way. I've always understood that the US, UK, Canada, and likely many other democracies to have fairly similar processes for jury selection, although I wouldn't be surprised if the way each of them are implemented have significant differences.
What I do have an issue with is the report from Star Tribute about a problematic answer on the jury questionnaire, coupled with evidence that seems to put that answer into question. That's not a question of bias, but of honesty in a potential juror.
Of course, it is just a news report. If it is correct, we don't know, but I've seen plenty of articles that quote civil rights experts that state it merits looking into. I also checked their credentials, these weren't Breitbart pundits , it included people with a career of targeting police misconduct in the courts.
If the principles behind the usa system were good then it got severely perverted a very long time ago because it's an abomination now.
Treatment IS often given as an alternative to jail , usually for misdemeanor first time offenders. One thing that can happen is that treatment gets enforced in a non self affirming way. What I mean by that is you and your lawyer work out a deal with no prison time. Instead you’ll spend two weeks at a rehab clinic and be on probation for 6 months. Well the probation terms are often quite long and one screw up can land you in jail and in many districts they are looking for that screw up. Treatment needs to be set up in a way that helps the people being treated.
Out of sight out of mind, I think there’s only people who feel like it’s out of site out of mind. There’s very nice suburbs where they seem like no one gets arrested but there are actually thousands of arrests. If you hung out in my area you might think hardly anyone gets arrested here but actually thousands do every month.
And they'll see something like black on black violence and act like they had nothing to do with and played no part in creating that atmosphere. I merely attempt to argue that something like universal healthcare alleviates that terribleness. People just can't seem to see it. Or they don't want to, I dunno...And I make every effort to make the argument about economics and stability within a nation rather than race or charity. Moral arguments don't seem to go far in a country based on hyper individualism
The truth is, yes, not knowing any better, or caring, leads to the insane amount of common violence and crime, but it doesn't end there. The fact that people don't give full effort or show a willingness to sacrifice for a greater good is what I mean by out of sight out of mind. I just think a lot of people, of all stripes, just would rather live in comfort and cognitive dissonance than join a Herculean effort and give full weight to fundamental change...
And I get that. Because the last thing they want is to get that change, but irreversible damage in terms of the good parts of capitalism. But when a desire for change is demagogued into something it isn't, that's just cognitive dissonance. Just because one doesn't want to pay more in taxes, or concede once taken for granted privilege, doesn't mean you get to act like we're about to turn into (insert scary country name here)
I'm just saying use your imagination here a bit. I know full well the danger presented in the toughest jobs police officers have to confront. I contend those who are straight up abolish the police persons tell me how you would do Danielle Outlaw's job? This isn't ****ing Blue Bloods...I'll be cynical right along with a victor or some of the UP fellows, but I wonder if any of them have spent any significant time in a place like Germantown or Logan. Ever seen two dudes ready to pull out their burners, but didn't do **** bc there's a cop down the street? What happens when there's no cops? I've broken up fights before but I'm not stupid. I got lucky. It just doesn't work that way...
I'm just saying certain behaviors can have power we don't really give a chance to work. Just because one preaches nonviolence doesn't mean he can't function in a spot where violence is not only unavoidable, but necessary. If that's the environment you live in, then that is understood. However, that doesn't mean you can't advocate for a slow unraveling of that which promotes violence, or demonstrates to segments of the population that violence seems like the only answer
I had an employee once, just angry af. Snappin at customers. Just in a bad mood all the time. I took her out back and literally didn't say a word. I literally gave her a hug. She bawled her eyes out and started telling me about her home life. I mean has anyone hugged this kid before? Anyone at home?
The anger issues don't go away, but when someone demonstrates they actually give a **** about someone else, that does reverse a polarity in one's mind. Does it work every time? No, but if someone is angry, returning anger with the same thing serves no purpose. Complementary behavior is natural in us all, has anyone tried the concept of not doing that? Sometimes not giving someone ammo takes the tension down a notch or two
The only thing I was attempting to justify was my counter-claim that not all armed suspects are shot and killed by the police. But since things tend to float by the same principle by which they sink, if we really want to improve outcomes we need to look for the affirmative factor present when things go right that is absent when things go wrong. And to do that we need to look at times the cops get it right. A big issue with these discussions is you et al seem to believe floating or getting it right is a norm to be expected. I don't. I mean I hope the cops get it right but I'm not literally expecting they all will all of the time. I call that realism, ymmv.
I just think we don't consider things like universal healthcare directly address those same outcomes by making them not exist. And you can get rid of the **** people currently game the system (I know the way it's done all too well and I'm somewhat disgusted by it, but I understand) with as positive results come along...I don't think free **** needs to be added to more already free ****. I just think we can add here and subtract there, and it doesn't have to be such a bloat or fiscal rashness...UHC is an investment not dissimilar to SS, with the added benefit that people who summarily gain from it become far more productive than they would living in constant fear, anxiety, pressure, and a job they don't really want, but are stuck with
I know people who've lost years of productivity because of this FUBAR system. How do you think sick people in a crime riddled neighborhood fares?
I'm confident that if we were both placed in a situation where we had to defend ourselves, and other people from aggressors, I would be able to prevent injury and death at a much higher rate than you.
Why is this? You value an aggressors well being over everybody else, I value it less. You might save more aggressors than I would, but it would result in way more innocent lives lost, including your own. You probably deny this trade-off exist. It's also likely I'm less likely to panic.
Why is this? You value an aggressors well being over everybody else, I value it less. You might save more aggressors than I would, but it would result in way more innocent lives lost, including your own. You probably deny this trade-off exist. It's also likely I'm less likely to panic.
How omniscient of you
"I'm less likely to panic"
Says the guy who goes on tilt and loses his temperament every other day on the internet
The weird hypothetical only speaks to your narcissism and not well for your mental stability, but I'm willing to lend some credence if your military background implies training and experience in the field
But you get mad a lot. Makes me not think it's a good idea to bet on you in a situation where composure is paramount...
I dont know the stats on police being stabbed, shot or killed but a comparison with the USA would be interesting.
As for resources. Yes we put a lot of resources into not killng people in the UK. It's also standard practice to get lots of police to an incident that looks like it might escalate because that often deters any (further) violence even though the extra police dont do anything much. Good use of resources although open to abuse as well.
As for resources. Yes we put a lot of resources into not killng people in the UK. It's also standard practice to get lots of police to an incident that looks like it might escalate because that often deters any (further) violence even though the extra police dont do anything much. Good use of resources although open to abuse as well.
But that would be an interesting experiment. It's not like UK is all infallible police. Also, this vast land varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some places in the US simply don't exist in Europe
But Colin Kaepernick looks so militant in his Kunta Kinte shirt!
Who were the two guys in the thumbnail who were tasked with confronting a machette-weilding insane person? I guess those with least seniority - or those who could run the fastest? Is the idea that this was somehow a good technique because none of the police were stabbed or killed? Seems pretty results-oriented thinking. And how many resources were required at the end - like 20 officers?
As for resources, if the alternative is to shoot him dead then I'm okay with it taking a dozen or more officers. They're saving his life. That's the job. Guy's probably having a mental breakdown and the default solution shouldn't be execution just to save time.
Lady is absolutely horrible, but wanting to charge her (with what?) is worse.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE