What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

One of my daughters has been dating a black man for several years. He is a good young man, and I'm happy for both of them. Last year, he was pulled over and ticketed in the southern city in which they live. There was no violence involved, but from what I learned of the facts (one sided, I'm sure), he didn't have a chance with the officer. They scraped together enough money to hire defense counsel and beat the charge. It was her first exposure to what she now thinks can be an unfair system.

Ours is a violent, gun-happy culture in which cities of all sizes struggle to provide basic services with fewer dollars. When police are inadequately vetted, bigots get badges. When they are inadequately trained, the fear that decent officers experience in potentially risky situations causes them to do dumb and dangerous things. Add to that the kind of latent racism some have which causes them to think the danger is enhanced when the "suspect" is a black male, you have even more dumb and dangerous choices. In my very limited, small town experience, the people who become interested in police work are often the same people who have been interested in the same activities police are there to protect against. There is an attraction of some sort. I don't know if that is commonplace or just limited to my experience.

Municipalities have to vet better to keep the wrong people out of the ranks and they have to train them better once they are in. More money is not sufficient, but it is necessary. You can't take it from schools and other public support programs that provide medical care and jobs. Perhaps divert more money from the so-called war on drugs here and the war on bad guys abroad. Try, through education and reasonable regulation, to lower the number of guns out there. The proliferation of real guns also adds to the number of imagined guns.

I don't know much about the peer review, prosecutorial side of officer misconduct cases, but something obviously needs to be done to ensure that cops receive the same level of scrutiny others receive. I don't know what that is, but for each case in which a cop gets an undeserved pass there will be many cases in which a deserved pass is perceived as corruption. And like others have said here, once trust is completely lost in a large segment of the population, you have a very serious problem.

All obvious points, I know.

If they were obvious points we'd take action on them as a society.

This is beautifully stated but unfortunately the bulk of our fellow citizens not only would fail to agree with your eloquent points, but fail to understand them entirely.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

And we have another bingo!

The fact that all it takes is for a cop to "fear for his life" is one of the worst standards ever.

Now imagine stand and defend laws. Everyone can operate by that standard.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

Legally what needs to happen is that the doctrine of qualified immunity needs to be scaled back.

Right now it is so tilted towards the cop that they can literally get away with murder. Because not only is there an objective test, but also a subjective one. We don't just ask, "Would a reasonable person in similar circumstances have felt their life was in danger?" but also "Did that actual cop reasonably believe his life was in danger at the time without benefit of hindsight?"

As I've stated before, this is a two-pronged problem. One is the racial component, but beyond that there is the systematic militarization of the police and the "thin blue line" mentality. The latter affects everyone, but there is no doubt that the former means minorities feel it worse than Whites.
I'm puzzled by this. Isn't it currently the law that an objective standard is used? That is, the officer's conduct is judged by what a reasonable cop, at that exact scene and in those exact circumstances, would do? I agree that practically speaking that is a somewhat "subjective" objective standard since no two circumstances are ever exactly alike. So, basically that cop is in a unique situation.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

They sent in a bomb robot with a bomb and detonated it to kill the suspect. Yikes. That is serious stuff.

On the local NBC affiliate they talked about cops getting the "desired result" I'm taking that to be a quote from the Dallas police dept. Not sure if its related to the bomb robot or not. Was that robot in the parking garage?
 
I'm puzzled by this. Isn't it currently the law that an objective standard is used? That is, the officer's conduct is judged by what a reasonable cop, at that exact scene and in those exact circumstances, would do? I agree that practically speaking that is a somewhat "subjective" objective standard since no two circumstances are ever exactly alike. So, basically that cop is in a unique situation.

You're correct, that was my bad. Though it's still a very deferential standard because it's self reinforcing (a reasonable cop is always fearful for his life in any situation these days, it seems).

I thankfully haven't had to work on an excessive force case since I was a law clerk for a judge back in the day. I just remember at that time personally thinking the guy in that case was getting screwed because of qualified immunity; the cops pulled him over, said he was attempting to flee (just off camera, of course) , so they threw him down, breaking his jaw in the process. He tried to sue, they claimed immunity, and the case was dismissed.

To top it off he had a joint in his pocket and got charged with that even though the initial stop was illegal. But because he had attempted to resist by fleeing (allegedly), and it's illegal to resist even an otherwise illegal stop, the search was OK at that point and the pot came in.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

You're correct, that was my bad. Though it's still a very deferential standard because it's self reinforcing (a reasonable cop is always fearful for his life in any situation these days, it seems).

I thankfully haven't had to work on an excessive force case since I was a law clerk for a judge back in the day. I just remember at that time personally thinking the guy in that case was getting screwed because of qualified immunity; the cops pulled him over, said he was attempting to flee (just off camera, of course) , so they threw him down, breaking his jaw in the process. He tried to sue, they claimed immunity, and the case was dismissed.

To top it off he had a joint in his pocket and got charged with that even though the initial stop was illegal. But because he had attempted to resist by fleeing (allegedly), and it's illegal to resist even an otherwise illegal stop, the search was OK at that point and the pot came in.
This has always seemed to me to be one of those areas where the law doesn't work great in one context, but is absolutely necessary in others.

Qualified immunity is definitely something that we still want to recognize. I don't think we want to live in a world where it's either absolute immunity or nothing. But is it even possible to have varying degrees of qualified immunity? I have no idea, but that seems like a rat hole we don't want to crawl down.

We make cops carry guns. We demand that they shoot and kill people, in certain circumstances. We, and the job, demand the exercise of discretion. I just really hate the exercise of hindsight to second guess that discretion.

But we obviously have a very bad problem right now. I've posted it before and I'll post it again, I think it begins with how we educate and supervise cops. We definitely need more training with respect to dealing with the mentally ill, and the need to try to slow down the entire event.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

You're correct, that was my bad. Though it's still a very deferential standard because it's self reinforcing (a reasonable cop is always fearful for his life in any situation these days, it seems)..

seems reasonable.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

You're correct, that was my bad. Though it's still a very deferential standard because it's self reinforcing (a reasonable cop is always fearful for his life in any situation these days, it seems).

I thankfully haven't had to work on an excessive force case since I was a law clerk for a judge back in the day. I just remember at that time personally thinking the guy in that case was getting screwed because of qualified immunity; the cops pulled him over, said he was attempting to flee (just off camera, of course) , so they threw him down, breaking his jaw in the process. He tried to sue, they claimed immunity, and the case was dismissed.

To top it off he had a joint in his pocket and got charged with that even though the initial stop was illegal. But because he had attempted to resist by fleeing (allegedly), and it's illegal to resist even an otherwise illegal stop, the search was OK at that point and the pot came in.

I have a buddy who one night was walking home from a bar. He chose to walk cause he had been drinking and lived close enough he could grab his car the next day. He walked through a Home Depot parking lot where a cop was sitting in wait. It seems the alarm had been tripped at Home Depot earlier so they were trying to see if anyone was breaking in. As he walks past they throw on their lights and start screaming at him. They ask why he is there so he explains. They accuse him of breaking in and he denies it. He gets a little mouthy and they handcuff him push his head into the car and throw him to the ground. They arrest him for trespassing and resisting but drop the charges the next day when his story checks out and Home Depot reports it was a malfunction.

He was going to sue but his lawyer was terrible (I have a cousin who is an attorney who i tried to get my friend to hire) so it never went anywhere. It took a year to get the dash cam footage. You can hear them interrogate him and can see he never resists (even says I am not resisting I have done zero wrong) and you can hear his head hit the car and him get thrown to the ground. (off camera) Lawyer refused to take it to court and my buddy dropped it.
 
And we have another bingo!

The fact that all it takes is for a cop to "fear for his life" is one of the worst standards ever. I now people who fear for their lives crossing the street downtown should they be allowed to shoot people who drive by them?
Key word is reasonable. It definitely isn't met in a lot of these cases and I'd say the same about Trayvon and idk how many other examples.
 
Re: Cops 3: Shoot low boys -- they're ridin' Shetland ponies!

In my very limited, small town experience, the people who become interested in police work are often the same people who have been interested in the same activities police are there to protect against. There is an attraction of some sort. I don't know if that is commonplace or just limited to my experience.

"Just as every cop is a criminal," England, 1968. I'd guess "commonplace." :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top