A clear case of a trigger happy policeman.
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 7 months ago to The Gulch: General
Here is a case where the evidence is clear. The cop screwed up and the dash-cam video shows the overreaction. The reason for the stop was "seat belt violation." I'm sorry, but not wearing a seat belt, in and of itself, should not be reason to stop or question anyone of the age of consent. They pose no public danger and the only risk is to themselves. Who do we belong to?
Fought it when the cigarette laws came out (rather than leaving it to the businesses that allowed it).
I don't smoke (did for six months when a teen), don't and never have ridden a motorcycle.
Decades later it's clear - more and more encroachment on our personal freedoms.
We were silent when it wasn't us.
Now it's us.
I think the only thing really new about this is the video camera.
The typical person (bullies) recruited to, or interested in this profession lends itself to a percentage of cops that will behave like this. The cameras should help weed them our faster now.
That's protecting us from ourselves and doing so on a local, state and federal levels when such laws are passed and it's an encroachment on our freedoms.
The issue is a bit bigger than trigger happy cops.
The black dude innocently goofed up though. I think he was surprised and moved too quickly to retrieve a wallet from a car seat.
Should you ever get pulled over by a cop, do not trust him to act rationally.
Do not do anything suddenly, especially with your hands. Let them be seen.
I've been trained in shoot and don't shoot situations and I recall some really tricky scenarios. I got tricked into make-believe shooting a goofy-looking dude who shook his head every time he was told to stop. Then he whipped out a sign from behind his back that said "I'm deaf." ! said "Bang" at the same time. That was embarrassing. Taught me a lesson, though.
Want a chance of getting a warning instead of a ticket? To at least avoid being" tazed"? Do not mouth off. Do not lose your temper. Say "sir" or 'ma'am a lot. Me old dino used to have a lead foot and got out of several tickets just for being respectful.
Simply not true.
Psychological tests are part of the training.
The first claim is true - but meaningless - we have many more police officers that we need than we have terrorists. More likely to die in a car wreck than a plane wreck due to number of rides in cars vs. planes. Doesn't automatically make planes safer (they are, I believe, however).
Are there crazy officers? Sure. Compared to the general public the number is tiny as they are actively assessed after every violent incident.
If you believe that, that's your choice.
I have serious trouble believing that without evidence.
Some cases? Of course. As an agency?
No. Would still rather trust my safety to a police officer than someone from the general public.
People will follow ethics that are different from yours and mine.
Holder saw no conflict in being Attorney General AND an activist at the same time - I'd call that an ethical conflict of interests - but the Bar would not.
What you are suggesting is one of two things: Either every police department in the country (Or nearly, based on the way you phrased it) is involved (that's tens of thousands), or you're just referring to this particular one and perhaps a few others, in which case I'd agree.
But blanket "they're all crooked" statements without evidence simply do not fly.
Even police officers (452,037), non-police employees (1,021,456-452,037), police stations (no statistic) deserve a simple truth and regardless of what you are suggesting, I'll stick with that:
"Innocent until proved guilty".
As to the typical police departments white-wash and cover ups during internal investigations, again you surprise me the blinders - when you have a department investigating itself, what results do you really expect? A couple of years ago my little community in VA had a wild cop who had several high speed accidents in a couple of years on the force and finally committed a big one - on an non-emergency call he sped up to over 130 mi/hr on main street during rush hour - sent two people to a hospital, split his car in two equal parts and instantly became a martyr. Instead of admitting that this punk was a low level criminal, the department gave him a funeral, attended by 1,000 cops from around the country (at your and my expense) and proclaimed him to be a hero! You wanted an example - that's one. Need I go on with more examples?
It's no excuse for vilifying all police officers - that's tin-foil hat terrain.
When Fast and Furious is brought into court and tried as treason, THEN I'll treat it as treason.
That almost NO ONE is doing anything of the sort, on either side of the political aisle, I take to mean that there isn't any way to be sure such a charge will stick.
That you don't know that what you are saying is your opinion, lacking actual charges, is your issue.
The rest of us will continue to investigate, and use legal and ethical methods for charging criminals. This cop was dealt with through the system you deride, but read the sentence.
Totally appropriate to the crime. Why would I join in the equivalent of mob rule?
Investigate, prosecute. They did it this time and it worked.
The number of cops who commit crimes, even are accused of crimes, is very small compared to the general public. That's why it's NEWS - it's rare and unusual.
In addition, what you missed about cop who died was that he also had otherwise a lifetime of service risking his life for the safety of people like you. His act was contemptible, but you'd condemn all of the 1000 cops for daring to recognize the REST of the man's life of service? That's just over the top silly.
Attempting to prove the guilt of an entire institution that has run for 200 years plus over a few instances of problems is silly as well.
You're wasting my time with this. I could easily condemn you because of all the civilian crime. Or name a group you belong to and I could find instances of people in that group who have committed crime and thus condemn you?
What nonsense.
If you have GENUINE proof there is a massive conspiracy, show it.
Otherwise, I'm done. The only thing down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories is rabbit pellets and the people that eat them thinking they'll make themselves bigger - I have no interest in joining them (apologies to Alice and Lewis Carroll).
Holder is doing everything possible to cover up and withhold evidence of the illegal strawman purchases and resulting deaths of fast and furious. This is why he was found guilty of contempt of congress. He wasn't providing subpoenaed information or answering pertinent questions. There has been clear evidence of obstruction of justice. They broke federal law and knew it. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) --- Title 18, United States Code, ยง 922 (a)(6). This is just one of many examples of his lawlessness. The clear foot dragging regarding the IRS scandal is another. The AG is not supposed to apply the law with any political leanings or discretion. He is supposed to apply the law (all laws) objectively whether he agrees with them or not (the same goes for our POTUS when he swears to uphold the Constitution). It is up to the legislature to set and determine law. It is up to the AG to enforce them, whether he agrees or not.
Regarding your perspective on blanket statements about every police officer or department I agree. Many are dedicated respectable law enforcers who serve and protect, but it only takes a few bad apples.
Respectfully,
O.A.
But there is a reality here that people often forget:
NO person EVER REALLY thinks, "I am the bad guy".
They may say it, but beneath it they say, "I am the victim and they deserve it" (for whatever reason. Most of the time they are thinking "I'm doing the right thing."
Different ethics. May be totally illegal. I utterly disagree with the ethics of Holder in his actions in this case. But what we have is a group of people (Holder and others chose them for their ethics, which are NOT universal) and that's how you end up with things like Fast and Furious.
Look at Islam - VERY ethical...with others they perceive with Muslims. But the word "innocents" doesn't include infidels.
Black hats and white hats only exist in fictional stories and children's tales. In reality, we're all the "good guy" in our personal narrative.
Even this officer. Doesn't mean we don't prosecute. Not an excuse. I don't have the same ethics as Holder - so I oppose his efforts.
That's why they have internal affairs and several other oversight communities. Watchdogs on watchdogs - many are unfamiliar with them. Having had a father in law-enforcement, I am not.
Remember, that's how this officer got caught - video from his own car. No one is better watched than police officers.
I find we are in general agreement. I would however propound the notion that in the case of Holder since he is the AG, there is no one with a higher rank among law enforcement, so he has no routine watchdog so long as the POTUS is aligned with his politics and approves of his actions. This factor along with the present state of our Congress has made the man virtually untouchable. Even if he is found guilty of something it is highly likely that Obama will pardon him.
As far as individual morality/ethics go, it is, as you know, not the criteria for legality.
In Ben Shapiro's new book (which I am presently reading), the case is well made that he and many in the administration have committed many crimes, but seem untouchable so long as the AG's office is in their pocket. The investigations are not serious and only kabuki theater with a preordained outcome destined only to find some low level scapegoats and maintain plausible deniability for the true puppet-masters.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Here is a positive story: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/...
The true reason for the law...
Regards,
O.A.
If cops are truly that afraid of citizens, they need to find another line of work. Preferably one that doesn't include weapons. I would rather that 100 cops get shot (After all they wear armor) than 100 unarmed citizens get shot.
I'd just as soon 100 Alton Nolens and Michael Browns got shot.
Anyone else note that Alton Nolen had attacked a cop during a traffic stop? Maybe Darren Wilson prevented Michael Brown from, at some point in the future, slaughtering innocent citizens.
Yes. This is so unfortunate. Having all these laws affects the way we interact with each other. It's really corrosive. IMHO there should be very few laws and they should be strictly enforced.
The good news is it says the officer will be prosecuted. It looks really bad b/c even if he thought the suspected seatbelt-violator had a gun, it appears he keeps firing after it's obvious he poses no threat.
And if there weren't so many people wanting power over others, we wouldn't need so many laws.
To add insult to that, in more than 80% of the cases they get off with no real punishment.
Perhaps we should stop being so worried about terrorists & be more worried about power mad killer cops.
This is what happens when you stop thinking & doing for yourself & have hirelings manage your cities & protection.
We have a cop in our neighborhood, fired from his bigger city job after attacking a woman stopped for a seat belt violation. He did not shoot her, but did rough her up. The dashcam on that one showed a cop in need of anger management skills. He moved to our neighbor hood, but would not tell us his last name - we found out anyway. He has reacted violently to his neighbors as well. Meanwhile, the union got the dashcam video scrubbed from the Internet, and the news article about his dismissal, as well.
We need watchdogs.
Watchdogs that lie are no one's friend.