What's new
By:
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: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
unofan said:
How's he supposed to exit the vehicle with his hands out of the window?

And if he pulled them back in to open the door, you'd be saying he's non-compliant for not keeping his hands where the cops could see them.

There was no way for this guy to win. And because he's black, that could mean a death sentence.
Click to expand...

Can't he just open the door from the outside?
 
SJHovey said:
Why didn't he just get out of the car when they asked him to? He's at a well lit gas station, that probably has security cameras. I've been asked by law enforcement to get out of my car before. I had no idea why (to this day I still have no idea why).
Click to expand...

Why? Why can't the officers answer his question??? Why is it required to follow every cop order without knowing why???

If the cop demanded he get a BJ, would he have to comply??

Citizens of this country have the right to know what they are being charged with, just answer that, and de-escalate the situation.

The cops should not have the power to demand whatever they want without telling people why. That's WHY cops are feared instead of respected.
 
SJHovey said:
Can't he just open the door from the outside?
Click to expand...

Maybe (though depending on the handle type, good luck doing that from inside the car). But even if he could, odds are he'd fumble for the door handle, twitch, contort his body, or otherwise do something that would be "non-compliant."

I mean, for fuck's sake, you've already faulted him for going to a well-lit area (something that is far from unheard of), for not turning the engine off (something I've never been asked to do on the 3 occasions I've been pulled over for speeding), and for not moving fast enough in the face of cops yelling at him, even though had he moved too fast he'd be faulted for that.

Maybe instead of trying to find every single fault with the victim, you look at the supposedly trained professionals performing their occupations and ask whether they would've treated a 35-year-old white woman the same way. You can't tell me with a straight face that they would.
 
Last edited:
SJHovey said:
Why didn't he just get out of the car when they asked him to? He's at a well lit gas station, that probably has security cameras. I've been asked by law enforcement to get out of my car before. I had no idea why (to this day I still have no idea why).
Click to expand...

You're not black. And you don't have a cop in your face telling you you should be afraid to step out of your vehicle.

You hear that from a cop, what do you think? That bad things are gonna happen if you step out of your vehicle. And every black person knows what bad things happen to them by cops.

God you're a doosh.
 
Scarlet said:
I admittedly got my law degree from Law & Order University, but in both cases, isn't there a case for depraved indifference? Especially with the Chauvin case. The defense if pushing that George Floyd died because of drugs in his system, or whatever. OK, let's say that's the case. That STILL doesn't mean you should kneel on his neck for 9 minutes. If you thought he was having cardiac issues, or whatever, call an ambulance and try to keep him alive. That way he survives and you can make sure he goes to jail. But instead, you kneel on his neck and do nothing to help him to ensure he survive and make sure he goes to jail. With her, yes, she seems contrite, but she did shoot the guy.

Every time I watch a police drama and the bad guys are getting away by car, the police shoot at the car. And I always yell "SHOOT THE TIRES!" Because then the car doesn't get away (or it's more difficult). On that same thought - when watching police dramas and the police shoot a suspect who is running away, I always yell "SHOOT AT THE LEGS!" because they always wind up shooting the perp in the chest, or head or whatever and the perp dies. Why did Officer Potter have to shoot where it would kill him? Even if she was going to taser him. Taser the arm or something. I know not all police officers are the best shot yet they seem to always shoot where it does the most damage.
Click to expand...

They're trained to shoot to "stop the threat" which means putting multiple bullets into the torso since it's most likely to be hit.

Which is actually ok in theory if they actually followed procedures to the letter of the law because they should only be using deadly force whenever there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to themselves or others, and any time you fire a gun it is considered deadly force.

The problem is that what they say justifies the use of deadly force often times shouldn't (or wouldn't for anyone outside of law enforcement), especially as one's skin tone gets darker.
 
unofan said:
They're trained to shoot to "stop the threat" which means putting multiple bullets into the torso since it's most likely to be hit.

Which is actually ok in theory if they actually followed procedures to the letter of the law because they should only be using deadly force whenever there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death to themselves or others, and any time you fire a gun it is considered deadly force.

The problem is that what they say justifies the use of deadly force often times shouldn't (or wouldn't for anyone outside of law enforcement), especially as one's skin tone gets darker.
Click to expand...

Shooting in the leg does mean stop the threat (to me) because then the bad guy can't go anywhere and lo and behold, he/she is taken into custody.
 
Scarlet said:
I admittedly got my law degree from Law & Order University, but in both cases, isn't there a case for depraved indifference? Especially with the Chauvin case. The defense if pushing that George Floyd died because of drugs in his system, or whatever. OK, let's say that's the case. That STILL doesn't mean you should kneel on his neck for 9 minutes. If you thought he was having cardiac issues, or whatever, call an ambulance and try to keep him alive. That way he survives and you can make sure he goes to jail. But instead, you kneel on his neck and do nothing to help him to ensure he survive and make sure he goes to jail. With her, yes, she seems contrite, but she did shoot the guy.

Every time I watch a police drama and the bad guys are getting away by car, the police shoot at the car. And I always yell "SHOOT THE TIRES!" Because then the car doesn't get away (or it's more difficult). On that same thought - when watching police dramas and the police shoot a suspect who is running away, I always yell "SHOOT AT THE LEGS!" because they always wind up shooting the perp in the chest, or head or whatever and the perp dies. Why did Officer Potter have to shoot where it would kill him? Even if she was going to taser him. Taser the arm or something. I know not all police officers are the best shot yet they seem to always shoot where it does the most damage.
Click to expand...

Police miss their target more than they hit it, and if they were aiming at smaller and more narrow body parts (legs versus torso, for instance) the miss rate would be even higher. If you are going to unholster your firearm and shoot at someone, your only goal is to stop the person from being a threat. Period. You are more likely to stop them by first hitting them, and secondly by hitting vital organs like hearts and lungs.

I am easily one of the most vocal cop bashers on this forum, and even I think the notion of anyone trying to hit a leg or shoot a gun out of a hand is wildly far-fetched, and especially so under the circumstances of live fire. We need to teach cops to deescalate and absolutely require that of them whenever it is remotely possible. We need to root out the racists and the systemic racism in policing (and society). We need to truly make the police accountable for every criminal act an officer commits. But it isn't realistic to expect -- when lethal force is justified -- even the most well trained officers to be able to shoot only to wound. And if lethal force is not justifed, that weapon needs to remain holstered.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Sometimes you should've brought the SWAT team.
And this was serving the warrant at the residence (as someone recommended earlier).

https://www.valleynewslive.com/cont...ling-Grand-Forks-officer-faces-570869201.html
Click to expand...

So is that justification that cops have to assume that everyone is armed and dangerous for 100% of situations? We already know where that assumption heads to- people get shot for just being black and in the wrong place.

When guns are drawn for a simple traffic violation, something is wrong- as that's about as high of escalation as you can get.
 
MichVandal said:
So is that justification that cops have to assume that everyone is armed and dangerous for 100% of situations? We already know where that assumption heads to- people get shot for just being black and in the wrong place.

When guns are drawn for a simple traffic violation, something is wrong- as that's about as high of escalation as you can get.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know, if there weren't so many freakin' guns out there, cops wouldn't have to assume every time they make a stop that the person might be armed and dangerous.

Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top