Another Police Shooting, Ho Hum, Wait What The Fuck

[Wyndon]

Armake, I don't quite get it. Please tell me what a subdued, unarmed man with 3 police officers nearby could have done? Please humor me and answer that question?

And also, they never even tried less lethal methods of subduing him. They never taser'd. They never mace'd. Hell, they coulda fucking beat the guy and knocked him out (Police are trained to fight, if I'm not mistaken?) and it woulda been okay.

The fact that they can't even admit their mistake astounds me as well. If they at least admit it, I think people will tone it down about how outrageous this case was, but they're being so adamant about it. If I was that family, I'd be pretty fucking pissed, to say the least.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mondt

I seem to have missed the shitty cop train.

As you were, I guess.

I mean, I will grant that sweeping generalizations about all policemen everywhere are still unfair, and that police don't typically get credit where they do their jobs, if for no other reason than that such stories tend to be reported as like, "heinous child pornographer goes to jail" and not like "police track down and arrest heinous child pornographer, with great difficulty and not inconsiderable risk of personal harm etc etc".

That said, I don't think it's unfair to use descriptors like 'mafia-esque' or 'gang-like' in reference to particular instances when police do operate in mafia-esque or gang-like ways, such as shooting people for little more than threatening their authority or colluding to help their compatriots avoid accountability for criminal behavior.

[Armake21truth]

I will give yall that I wish we had a clearer image of what the victim was doing so that we could tell how bad the person was acting for the cops to do that. He was pretty much hidden behind the cops from what I could tell. I can say definitively that the crowd is partly at fault either way. It doesn't excuse what the cops did, but it does make it more understandable.

Based on what I see I can only go with "I'm not certain, but it may be wrong"

About the nonlethal thing, I don't know where it's appropriate versus using their guns, so I can't argue one way or the other on it.

[Nique]

I can say definitively that the crowd is partly at fault either way. It doesn't excuse what the cops did, but it does make it more understandable.

No it doesn't.

[Fifthfiend]

Armake it is is generally the case that when you want to kill someone, you use a gun, and when you do not want to kill someone, the one thing you definitely do not do is use a gun. Given all of the many factors involved in a gunshot there's really no such thing as a reliable "non-lethal" or "shoot to wound" situation.

Also as far as this,

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I've seen how the public and the media conveniently interpret shit however they see fit.

just speaking personally but I think I'm seeing a lot of how you, Armake, conveniently interpret things however you see fit.

In any case, your original claim

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I've watched the actual video, the camera moves around too much to be able to tell exactly what's going on. I can say for sure that it wasn't a peaceful situation, and that the cop may have been defending himself. But I don't know, again it's hard to tell.

is pretty clearly bunk. Whatever other claims you might care to make about the crowd, it is pretty clear that the young man in question was physically restrained at the time of the shooting, and witness accounts state that the young man in question was pleading with his companions to comply with the officers and with the officer restraining him not to hurt him. If it's that important to you to hold onto whatever 1% chance of some unknown fact that somehow completely validates a shooting under those circumstances then there's nothing anyone can do to stop you, but when your argument is 'we don't know for an absolute fact that the media, the multiple witnesses, and the video footage aren't conspiring to hide the truth (as opposed to the officers, who are demonstrably and actively hiding the truth), so let's not go making opinions until we have whatever impossibly high standard of evidence will suit me' then don't expect a whole lot of people to find that line of reasoning convincing.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

That's you, not everyone. People would use that against you and say you admitted to murder when you really didn't. I know because I've seen how the public and the media conveniently interpret shit however they see fit.

Maybe I'm just too idealistic to ever possibly make a remotely decent lawyer, but I still think honesty and integrity matter, and I think that if the police force's response to this crisis was "Holy shit, our officer totally fucked up, we obviously fucked up in giving him a badge, and we're so sorry to have done this, we beg your forgiveness and we need to address serious, systemic changes to our department," we wouldn't be seeing all this seething anger and dissent.

Mind you, I can't presume that I'd know what it feels like to be a family member or friend of the poor man who lost his life in this tragedy, but somehow I do suspect hearing that response from the police as opposed to all this shady, duplicitous behavior and outrageous denials of wrongdoing would have helped diffuse this situation and maybe even have led to some restoration of faith in BART's law enforcement agency as a whole.

Really, and just as a more general refutation of your argument, I personally believe that America is surprisingly forgiving of those who, upon committing egregious sins, genuinely apologize and reform themselves. On the flip side, our legal system is particularly harsh on those who show little empathy or remorse. Insofar as law enforcement agencies are directly responsible for equipping this officer with the means to irresponsibly use deadly force, it's those agencies' responsibility to deal with the aftermath in a constructive manner.

If they alternatively choose to conceal the truth and if they choose the well-being of their officers over the well-being of society at large, they have failed in their institutional duties, they have failed to act in a morally credible manner, and they deserve all the shit thrown at them.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

About the nonlethal thing, I don't know where it's appropriate versus using their guns, so I can't argue one way or the other on it.

Nonlethal is appropriate when you can subdue the person without killing them. Even better if you can do it without actually injuring the person. Punishment is a matter of the courts.

Lethal is appropriate when the person is trying to kill you and lethal force is the only way to stop them from doing that.

Really simple, actually.

[Lord Setheris]

Here is the fact. This happened.
Here is another fact. Tens of thousands of police do NOT shoot people in the back daily.

People have bad experiences with police because generally when police are involved, the situation is not favorable. Situations like this one breed an unneeded fear and resentment of law enforcement, which leads to distrust and disregard for law.


This is an isolated incident, and the man responsible will face punishment for this murder. It is in no way an accurate reflection on the state of our law enforcement system as a whole.

[Nique]

It is in no way an accurate reflection on the state of our law enforcement system as a whole.

But it is something that happened within the Law enforcement system, so it is a part of the reflection - What we should take from this is not that cops are all killers, but that there appears to be a very large problem with use of excessive force, and cops attempting to hide the, potentially dangerous or deadly, mistakes of other cops.

If the guy did it and his buddies came forward immediately and said 'yeah he did it and needs to be punished' then we'd be having a different conversation. These situations (including the other two I mentioned) involved a group of cops, not just one. Tell me that doesn't reflect an overall problem.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by Nique

Tell me that doesn't reflect an overall problem.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily mean a problem with our law enforcement system as a whole.

Are you familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment? It shows how people placed in certain roles have a tendency to behave in an authoritarian manner. Applying to the case of police specifically, it means that given power, there is a tendency to abuse it.

Obviously, this isn't a problem in the majority of the police force -- training counters natural tendencies. (For the most part.) However, another saying I've read: "No matter what you do, one out of every ten guys is a criminal." Meaning that there are some people who just can't control their darker side. Who just don't care.

On every police force, there are going to be some problem cops. But they aren't the majority. They aren't even a large fraction.

We have a police force for a reason -- because it works. Law enforcement prevents a lot of trouble each year, and if there are problems such as these, then they should be dealt with, but not by abolishing the entire police.