The Great Police Work Thread

[jeebs]

Yeah, it's not defensible. It's the same thing. You are incapacitating one way or the other, and both bring about health hazards as a result. Once just leaves less bruises and cuts.

One can be gradually escalated. The other can kill old women on contact. Don't want to use a club, try to firmly grab their shoulder and steer them. You ca gradually build up force until you beat them, the other just start at the equivalent of a beating with the only option to give another one of equal or greater strength.

 

[Cotton]

no you aren't. And if they didn't want you to walk away they could arrest you (not for the walking away part, rather for whatever they crime they suspect you of and want to talk to you about) or fuck off. That is their option. They can't make you stand their and talk to them, or put your camera down, or sit over there. No.

They have the right to arrest you, not tell you what to do.

Basically your position is supported by no laws, except a gun.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Basically, they can tell you what to do. Obviously it has to be a lawful order like "sit there". They can't tell you to put a camera down, obviously, but they have the authority to tell you to sit over there. And, if you walk off after an order, they have the authority to pursue your detainment within reason. Even if that ultimately means them taking you to the ground for being a dumbass.

 

[Cotton]

One can be gradually escalated. The other can kill old women on contact. Don't want to use a club, try to firmly grab their shoulder and steer them. You ca gradually build up force until you beat them, the other just start at the equivalent of a beating with the only option to give another one of equal or greater strength.

I agree with the idea of gradual escalation, but some would argue with you about using clubs on people.

 

[jeebs]

I agree with the idea of gradual escalation, but some would argue with you about using clubs on people.

I guess it was defenseable

 

[Cotton]

I guess it was defenseable

Gradual is relative, though.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Batons break bones. It's easier to zap someone and not put them in the hospital.

 

[jeebs]

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Basically, they can tell you what to do. Obviously it has to be a lawful order like "sit there". They can't tell you to put a camera down, obviously, but they have the authority to tell you to sit over there. And, if you walk off after an order, they have the authority to pursue your detainment within reason. Even if that ultimately means them taking you to the ground for being a dumbass.

Just want to say that this is a great post, but I think it can be used to support my position. I am going to try and take my shot tommorrow. But Noted, advantage Tdog.

 

[Cotton]

Just want to say that this is a great post, but I think it can be used to support my position. I am going to try and take my shot tommorrow. But Noted, advantage Tdog.

You are actually fun to debate with. As much as I disagree with some of your views, you are fairly sensible. I hate arguing with morons like SP that are absolute morons. You actually bring intellectual (sometimes hard to read, love ya) debate to the table.

 

[Clay_Allison]

You are actually fun to debate with. As much as I disagree with some of your views, you are fairly sensible. I hate arguing with morons like SP that are absolute morons. You actually bring intellectual (sometimes hard to read, love ya) debate to the table.

You can go ahead and call me out. I'm not afraid of being called an asshole.

 

[Cotton]

You can go ahead and call me out. I'm not afraid of being called an asshole.

Almost all of us on this board are assholes.

 

[jeebs]

Democracy in America
Ferguson and Iraq
Please shoot me
Aug 22nd 2014, 5:09 by M.S.

IN THE first part of VICE News's extraordinary five-part documentary on ISIS, released earlier this month, a bearded and strangely innocent-looking young press officer who goes by the name Abu Mosa invites America to attack his movement. "I say to America that the Islamic Caliphate has been established, and we will not stop," Abu Mosa says with a shy smile, a Kalashnikov leaning easily in his right hand. "Don't be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House."
America has since begun attacking ISIS with air and drone strikes, and on Wednesday, in response to the beheading of James Foley, a photojournalist, Barack Obama reiterated his commitment to the fight. But the president has not obliged Abu Mosa's wish for America to send in ground forces. For one thing, the airstrikes seem to have been reasonably successful in attaining the limited American goal of aiding Kurdish forces to recapture territory from ISIS. Inserting ground troops risks subjecting American forces to casualties and mission creep. In the video of Mr Foley's death, his ISIS executioner threatens to kill another hostage unless America ceases its airstrikes. Mr Obama shows no signs of letting any of this affect his decisions. As a rule, it is a bad idea to let your actions in a confrontation be guided by the other guy's provocations.
Advertisement

Not everyone understands this rule, though. In St Louis on Monday, two police officers responded to a report that a distraught man had stolen two cans of soda from a convenience store, and was carrying a steak knife. The officers stepped out of the car and immediately drew their guns on the man, 25-year-old Kajieme Powell, ordering him to drop the knife. Mr Powell refused, and instead began vaguely walking towards them, saying "Shoot me!" The officers opened fire, killing Mr Powell just seconds after they had arrived—nine shots in all, pop-pop-pop, some fired after Mr Powell had fallen to the ground. All of this can be clearly seen on the video of the confrontation that a bystander recorded on his smartphone, released Wednesday by the St Louis police department in the apparent belief that it exonerates the officers involved.
To my eye, the notion that this video is exculpatory evidence seems absurd. A report of a disturbed man waving around a steak knife and making angry pronouncements is supposed to end with a team of police officers surrounding the offender, trying to talk him down, and, if persuasion fails, eventually subduing him and sending him in for psychiatric evaluation. Nothing suggests police officers faced an emergency requiring them to use their guns. The video convinced me only that the officers should be prosecuted, and that the St Louis police department needs to be completely overhauled, starting with its rules on the use of deadly force. Missouri should also revise its justifiable-homicide laws, which, as Yishai Schwartz explains in the New Republic, make it "almost impossible" to convict police officers who claim they acted in self-defence.
But there's an interesting similarity here. In both of these cases, someone is provoking an attack from a more powerful actor. Why would anyone do that?
When force is used, it is often to influence or change the behaviour of a foe. The logic is that of deterrence: stop misbehaving, or we will attack you. Yet adversaries often understand that the deployment of force is not cost-free. The risk of escalation may ultimately make a conflict more costly than the initial deterrence was worth. This trade-off is a characteristic of many classic confrontations: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and so on.
In the case of ISIS, at least some elements apparently believe that luring America into a ground conflict will help them achieve their aims. For Islamic radical groups, fighting America is also great for recruitment, particularly if there is an opportunity to kill American soldiers. And if ISIS can escalate the conflict to the point where America no longer wants to bear the costs and pulls out, it will have scored a tremendous victory.
It is a bit hard to figure out what Mr Powell was trying to accomplish in St Louis, as he appears to have been mentally off-kilter, at least on that afternoon. (In a tragic moment in the video, before police arrive, a passerby advises him to back down: "That's not the way you do it, man.") But he was clearly trying to provoke police to shoot him, perhaps in the belief that this would illustrate the inequities of police brutality. More importantly, the police who confronted him, like police throughout the confrontations in Missouri, seem to be entirely committed to the logic of deterrence, while ignoring the costs of escalation. This is a problem of culture, of attitude, of legal impunity, and above all else of the pervasive use of firearms, which rapidly escalate minor disputes into potentially deadly confrontations. The police's deployment of force have left two dead and a town overwhelmed by protests and riots.
In Iraq, America seems to be weighing the risks of escalation very carefully before deploying force. In Missouri, however, the police seem to be deploying force without thinking about the consequences at all. And the cost of attacking the city's poorest and most beleaguered people is proving very high indeed.

 

[jeebs]

To sum up the above article for all who think the police were right to shoot the guy with the knife.

The police were called to the scene and told there is a crazy guy with the knife. So the police are going their to deal with a crazy man with a knife. Police show up on the scene to find a mentally disturbed man with a knife walking slowly around a public place. And the polices only response to the situation, a situation they were specifically called there to deal with and warned about, their only response is to gun the man down because he slowly lurched in their direction.

Their problem solving went no farther them draw and fire, while amazing the unarmed bystanders were able to safely navigate this threat for 30 minutes before the cops got there. Our brave boys in blue.

 

[Clay_Allison]

To sum up the above article for all who think the police were right to shoot the guy with the knife.

The police were called to the scene and told there is a crazy guy with the knife. So the police are going their to deal with a crazy man with a knife. Police show up on the scene to find a mentally disturbed man with a knife walking slowly around a public place. And the polices only response to the situation, a situation they were specifically called there to deal with and warned about, their only response is to gun the man down because he slowly lurched in their direction.

Their problem solving went no farther them draw and fire, while amazing the unarmed bystanders were able to safely navigate this threat for 30 minutes before the cops got there. Our brave boys in blue.

another case where the cops weirdly forget that they have tasers and pepper spray

 

[BipolarFuk]

Uh oh. Two WHITE guys say police shot Brown with his hands in the air

Uh oh. Two WHITE guys say police shot Brown with his hands in the air

Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air as he's gunned down by a police officer.

They were contractors doing construction work in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day Michael Brown was killed.

And the men, who asked not to be identified after CNN contacted them, said they were about 50 feet away from Officer Darren Wilson when he opened fire.

An exclusive cell phone video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.

"He had his f**n hands up," one of the men says in the video.

The man told CNN he heard one gunshot, then another shot about 30 seconds later.

"The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting," the man said.

That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown's "brains come out of his head," again stating, "his hands were up."

The video shows the man raising his arms in the air -- just as, he says, Brown was doing when he was shot.

The other contractor told CNN he saw Brown running away from a police car.

Brown "put his hands up," the construction worker said, and "the officer was chasing him."

The contractor says he saw Wilson fire a shot at Brown while his back was turned.

The men said they didn't seen how the confrontation started.

Other witnesses also said teen's arms were raised

The video, recorded several minutes after the shooting, gives new insight into the case, which has spurred a Justice Department investigation, national debate and protests over authorities' handling of the case.

The construction workers said they don't live in Ferguson and don't know the Brown family, but their account squares with accounts from several other witnesses of the unarmed African-American teen's shooting death on August 9.

Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the white officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun; other witnesses say Wilson was the aggressor.

A private autopsy conducted for the Brown family showed that Brown had been shot at least six times, including twice in the head.

A grand jury is hearing the case and will determine whether Wilson will face any charges.

Protesters near Interstate 70 and outside the police headquarters on Wednesday, pushing for Gov. Jay Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Brown's death.

Analysts debate video's impact

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin says the video could play an important role in the case.

"You have practically in real time someone discussing what they saw, and that's just good evidence," he said on CNN's "AC360."

Sunny Hostin, a CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, says it's important to note that several witnesses are telling the same story.

"They're saying that he was running from the police officer and that his hands were up," she said. "I don't know what other witness testimony at this point or account we have to hear. The bottom line is having your hands up is the universal sign for surrender."

Neil Bruntrager, general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, cautioned against rushing to judgment. Witness accounts are important, he said, but need to be evaluated with all the evidence.

"I'm not saying disregard them. I'm saying that we will judge their credibility by all of the evidence, not by one statement, and certainly not by a 15-second video clip," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[fortsbest]

Cops don't magically have the authority to make you do whatever thy say.

If a cop says dont walk away, I can walk away. I broke no laws.

This is a good argument Jeebs. And the answer is it depends on circumstances. If you are walking down the street minding your own business and Officer Friendly yells "hey you, come here right now!" for no good reason. Then I say keep walking. The risk you take is that that officer may have just left the scene of a robbery where the victims described you to a tee as the culprit. At that point, the officer may not be as sympathetic to your story if he has to chase you down because you ignored him. There are many circumstances where you must obey an officer's direction or be subject to arrest or citation. But it's easier to just comply and if it turns out to be an unjust action then call internal affairs later.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Man Shoots at Intruders, Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty
By Cassandra Rules on September 18, 2014

On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home. There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing- or anything damning enough for a reasonable person to feel the need to take an officers life.

Unfortunately the danger of no-knock raids is real. just ask the parents of baby Bou or the family of Detective Dinwiddie.

Detective Dinwiddie was one of the SWAT officers who broke into Guy’s house on May 9th, based on a seemingly bogus informant tip off about drugs being dealt from the home.

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self defense.

Dinwiddie, along with three other officers were shot while attempting to breach the windows to the home, according to the department’s press release.

“The TRU was beginning to breach the window when the 49 year old male inside, opened fire striking four officers.”
Since the shooting occurred during the break in, a reasonable person would assume they had not yet identified themselves as police officers. How on earth is this not self defense?

Prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty against Guy. He is charged with capital murder in Dinwiddie’s death, as well as three counts of attempted capital murder for firing on the other officers during the shootout, injuring one other officer. Body armor protected others who were hit.

This announcement, given by the prosecutor in open court, comes one day after Governor Rick Perry presented Dinwiddie’s family with the Star of Texas award. This award is given out each year to police and first responders killed or injured in the line of duty, the Killeen Daily Herald reported.

Let’s flash back to December, in Texas, for a moment.

On December 19, also just before 6am, Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, led a team in a no-knock marijuana raid on Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville.

Also startled by these intruders, Magee opened fire, fearing for the safety of himself and his then pregnant girlfriend.



Sowders was unfortunately killed among the chaos.

In February, just a few months before the fateful raid in Killeen, all charges against Magee were dropped when a Texas grand jury refused to indict, based on them believing he feared for his safety and that this was a reasonable act of self defense.

With such similar circumstances and such intensely opposite repercussions one cant help but try to find the differences.

Most obvious? Guy is black and Magee is white. Also, take note of the difference in photos used in the press.


Self defense is a right for all, and no knock raids not only pose a danger to dogs, children, and communities in general- but officers as well. Maybe its time to
re-think that strategy.

We need to end the war on drugs and put an end to this violence.

Estimates show that the total number of SWAT deployments across the country has increased from a few hundred per year in the 1970s, to a few thousand per year in the 80s, and in 2010, the Washington Times reported estimates being as high as 50,000 per year.

Many of these are for nonviolent misdemeanor drug offenses, not big time drug kingpins. Should we really be risking lives of citizens and officers, over what someone chooses to put into their own body?


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/#if2cf0PUeugC4lmx.99

 

[Clay_Allison]

Man Shoots at Intruders, Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty
By Cassandra Rules on September 18, 2014

On Friday, May 9, 2014, just after 5:30am in Killeen, Texas, Marvin Louis Guy was the target of a no knock raid.

The officers were looking for drugs, yet none were found in the home. There was some questionable paraphernalia, but nothing indicative of drug dealing- or anything damning enough for a reasonable person to feel the need to take an officers life.

Unfortunately the danger of no-knock raids is real. just ask the parents of baby Bou or the family of Detective Dinwiddie.

Detective Dinwiddie was one of the SWAT officers who broke into Guy’s house on May 9th, based on a seemingly bogus informant tip off about drugs being dealt from the home.

Likely alarmed by the men climbing through his windows at 5:30 in the morning, Guy and his wife sought to protect themselves and their property and fired on the intruders- in self defense.

Dinwiddie, along with three other officers were shot while attempting to breach the windows to the home, according to the department’s press release.

“The TRU was beginning to breach the window when the 49 year old male inside, opened fire striking four officers.”
Since the shooting occurred during the break in, a reasonable person would assume they had not yet identified themselves as police officers. How on earth is this not self defense?

Prosecutors are now seeking the death penalty against Guy. He is charged with capital murder in Dinwiddie’s death, as well as three counts of attempted capital murder for firing on the other officers during the shootout, injuring one other officer. Body armor protected others who were hit.

This announcement, given by the prosecutor in open court, comes one day after Governor Rick Perry presented Dinwiddie’s family with the Star of Texas award. This award is given out each year to police and first responders killed or injured in the line of duty, the Killeen Daily Herald reported.

Let’s flash back to December, in Texas, for a moment.

On December 19, also just before 6am, Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, led a team in a no-knock marijuana raid on Henry Goedrich Magee’s mobile home in Somerville.

Also startled by these intruders, Magee opened fire, fearing for the safety of himself and his then pregnant girlfriend.



Sowders was unfortunately killed among the chaos.

In February, just a few months before the fateful raid in Killeen, all charges against Magee were dropped when a Texas grand jury refused to indict, based on them believing he feared for his safety and that this was a reasonable act of self defense.

With such similar circumstances and such intensely opposite repercussions one cant help but try to find the differences.

Most obvious? Guy is black and Magee is white. Also, take note of the difference in photos used in the press.


Self defense is a right for all, and no knock raids not only pose a danger to dogs, children, and communities in general- but officers as well. Maybe its time to
re-think that strategy.

We need to end the war on drugs and put an end to this violence.

Estimates show that the total number of SWAT deployments across the country has increased from a few hundred per year in the 1970s, to a few thousand per year in the 80s, and in 2010, the Washington Times reported estimates being as high as 50,000 per year.

Many of these are for nonviolent misdemeanor drug offenses, not big time drug kingpins. Should we really be risking lives of citizens and officers, over what someone chooses to put into their own body?


Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/#if2cf0PUeugC4lmx.99

Texas Law is clear on this. He won't be facing shit once his lawyer reads the castle doctrine law in court.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Texas Law is clear on this. He won't be facing shit once his lawyer reads the castle doctrine law in court.

Funny how prosecutors don't care when it comes to guys like this.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Funny how prosecutors don't care when it comes to guys like this.

It's a good thing prosecutors don't also get to be judges or juries.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

It's a good thing prosecutors don't also get to be judges or juries.

Sure but the defendant has to hire an attorney. Post a bond. Do things that you know, take money, money that a lot of people don't have. So instead what happens is they get a public defender and they sit in jail. The public defender tells them they can sit in jail for 6 months waiting for a trial or take a plea offer. So then they end up taking a plea offer on a shitty charge.

And if you think Judges are impartial when it comes to the prosecuting attorneys that kind of a joke too. There offices are in the same building. They deal with each other on a daily basis. They are all looking to get elected again when their terms come up.