DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/597561-cops-behaving-badly-thread.html)

EddieMoney 06-17-15 04:13 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
At least we can all agree that the kid shouldn't have been shot at all.

spainlinx0 06-17-15 04:14 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511672)
If he had given the kid a ticket for flashing his lights, then he would have been a butthead. It's not doing anything illegal, but it's a dick move.

Stopping somebody who has committed an offense and giving them a warning (which he had already done previously that night as well) however is perfectly reasonable. You're grasping at straws to shift blame from the actual person responsible for how poorly things went.

I really can't see how you're defending the cops. The cop had lights flashed at him for having his headlights on. You don't think it's a complete power trip to pull the person over? Maybe something about enforcing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter?

EddieMoney 06-17-15 04:19 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511672)
You're grasping at straws to shift blame from the actual person responsible for how poorly things went.

This sentence really bothers me. Neither one contributed to a great situation, but...the cop was the one who was armed. And he killed the kid.

kvrdave 06-17-15 04:43 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511672)
If he had given the kid a ticket for flashing his lights, then he would have been a butthead. It's not doing anything illegal, but it's a dick move.

Stopping somebody who has committed an offense and giving them a warning (which he had already done previously that night as well) however is perfectly reasonable. You're grasping at straws to shift blame from the actual person responsible for how poorly things went.

I'm not shifting blame. We don't know who is to blame. We know a kid was pulled over for flashing his brights, he didn't comply with the orders of the officer, the cameras went out, and the kid was shot to death. Neither of us knows enough to adequately place blame here. I've simply quit giving the police the benefit of the doubt when people are killed, and I think there is enough evidence out there that says that they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because there are plenty of cops who do behave badly.

CaptainMarvel 06-17-15 05:28 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by spainlinx0
I really can't see how you're defending the cops. The cop had lights flashed at him for having his headlights on. You don't think it's a complete power trip to pull the person over? Maybe something about enforcing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter?

The cops? It was one cop. And I don't need to "defend" the traffic stop... it was legal. Period, end stop. Officers have discretion, which means I don't have to act as Officer A does and he doesn't have to act as Officer B does. As long as they're acting within the bounds of the law, there's no need to defend them further.

Was "flashing headlights" petty? Yes. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's part of policing. You find a small offense that gives you the legal justification to make a stop, and it lets you check the driver for a license, insurance, etc., see if you can see anything hinky while standing next to the car, and catch a whiff of his breath/listen to him talk to see if he's been drinking. If there are no issues, you cut them a warning on the minor law they broke and let them go. That's precisely what this officer had done just shortly before:

Sgt. Frost stopped a vehicle for having one headlight out.... Their interaction during the short traffic stop was cordial, and only a warning was issued by Sgt. Frost to fix his headlight and obtain proof of vehicle registration, which had apparently been mailed to the wrong address. Sgt. Frost cleared this traffic stop at 8:21 pm.
If Deven had been compliant during this stop (well, and not breaking other laws), I can virtually guarantee you he would have received a warning and been on his way without a ticket. At worst, he would have received a ticket for something he was actually doing wrong... horror, terror!


Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 12511743)
I'm not shifting blame. We don't know who is to blame. We know a kid was pulled over for flashing his brights, he didn't comply with the orders of the officer, the cameras went out, and the kid was shot to death. Neither of us knows enough to adequately place blame here. I've simply quit giving the police the benefit of the doubt when people are killed, and I think there is enough evidence out there that says that they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because there are plenty of cops who do behave badly.

You absolutely are shifting the blame. You tried to do it at first by questioning the legality of the stop, and when it was pointed out your were talking from your butt, you've now shifted tactics. You have an outcome you want to reach ("officer wrong").

I wonder if you even bothered to read the fucking report I linked. I know for a near certainty that some of the people responding did not.

You have on multiple videos a subject who is not only verbally but physically resistant. He was explicitly told he was being placed under arrest and still didn't comply. After the taser failed, the subject got up and attacked the officer. The officer in this case was wearing a body cam, which was fully operational until the dude tackled him. Before it was deactivated during the fight, it corroborated this. From the report:

Sgt. Frost's body-cam recorded 14 seconds of this segment of the incident before its lens and wire were dislodged from the recording/ battery pack during the altercation. But, a freeze frame sequence from the body-cam does show Deven rising swiftly and coming at Sgt. Frost with his hands and arms raised. The body-cam recording is difficult to interpret at this point because of the amount of movement and close proximity, but it appears to show movement from the clear, dark road surface into the snow covered ground off the roadway. The camera moves violently. Audio recordings of indistinct body movements, scuffling, and breathing can be heard. No more dialogue was recorded until Deven screams after being shot. All video and audio from Sgt. Frost's body-cam ends at this moment.
There was nothing on the cell phone camera (that continued running) to contradict any of this.

The sergeant reported that Deven had tackled him, come down on top of him, and was seated on the sergeant's hips punching him. Officers who arrived at the scene found the sergeant with apparent physical injuries, bleeding from his head. When he was taken to the hospital:

[The doctor] found no loose teeth, but did find bruising to an area near his left eye, a laceration in the middle of his forehead, swelling of his upper lip, and an abrasion on his left forehead. The doctor characterized the injuries as " significant facial trauma" with a possible mandibular (jaw bone) and orbital (eye socket) fracture. Another doctor subsequently looked at CT scans, and found no actual jaw or eye fractures.

Sgt. Frost was discharged from the hospital just before 2:00 am. He had to follow-up with an ophthalmologist due to decreased distance vision in his eyes, blurred vision and headaches. A doctor at the ophthalmologist' s office diagnosed him to have a subconjunctival hemorrhage.

Photos were taken of Sgt. Frost's injuries over several days. They show injuries focused on Sgt. Frost' s left eye, forehead, left upper forehead and an abrasion on the back of his head. The locations of his injuries are consistent with his statement of how and where Deven punched him.
This entire story is one cop doing one thing (traffic stop for the lights) which was in fact perfectly legal, but which some of you simply don't like. From that point on, we have a litany of unrefuted misdeeds by the driver (refusing to provide name/address, not having his DL in his possession, resisting the officer's order to step out of the vehicle, resisting the officer's verbal commands, physically resisting the officer's attempts to arrest him), and there's footage showing the driver getting up and coming at the officer.

It's not just "giving the benefit of the doubt" when there's an altercation between an obviously resistant person and an officer, and footage corroborating the officer's story, and physical injuries to the officer consistent with the officer's story, and literally nothing contradictory present.

Giantrobo 06-17-15 07:19 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by EddieMoney (Post 12511685)
At least we can all agree that the kid shouldn't have been shot at all.

No we can't. Not really.

Hokeyboy 06-17-15 08:29 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Yeah, I'm obviously no cop lover by any means (surprise!) but you'd better believe I'll be 2000% compliant with any reasonable demand from law enforcement. Pull me over and demand to see ID for whatever reason? Here you go. I'll even gift wrap the fucker and hand it over with a smile.

Never give anyone an iota of justification. You can stand up for your principles all you want, but principles aint worth dick if you're caught up with the wrong cop in the wrong mood on the wrong day. No amount of whiskey shots, false anarchist bravado, and shitty Rage Against The Machine karaoke is worth this kind of aggravation.

Bandoman 06-17-15 08:37 PM

So the Constitution doesn't matter?

Pharoh 06-17-15 08:38 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511786)
...

Was "flashing headlights" petty? Yes. I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's part of policing. You find a small offense that gives you the legal justification to make a stop, and it lets you check the driver for a license, insurance, etc., see if you can see anything hinky while standing next to the car, and catch a whiff of his breath/listen to him talk to see if he's been drinking. If there are no issues, you cut them a warning on the minor law they broke and let them go. That's precisely what this officer had done just shortly before:


I admit I am conflicted on the larger issue of police misconduct, partially due to my childhood.

However, another reason is my general rule, one that should apply to everybody here. That is, if you ever find yourself agreeing with Dave on anything, be it advice given, a prediction, a worldview, or a simple opinion, you should probably seriously reconsider your view. Therefore, while I want to agree with some that there is a significant problem with police misconduct, which is in turn leading to unnecessary deaths, I just can not.


I do have a serious question though on the snipet I quoted above. Is there evidence as to the efficacy of these small offense stops with regards to reducing serious, violent, crime, particularly with the consequential waste of man hours and the legitimate potential for abuse. I am especially interested in your answer given your belief in the Constitution.

CaptainMarvel 06-17-15 08:53 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Bandoman (Post 12511919)
So the Constitution doesn't matter?

The Constitutiton wasn't violated here. But even in other circumstances where the Constitution is violated, there are remedies available.

CaptainMarvel 06-17-15 09:07 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Pharoh (Post 12511921)
I do have a serious question though on the snipet I quoted above. Is there evidence as to the efficacy of these small offense stops with regards to reducing serious, violent, crime, particularly with the consequential waste of man hours and the legitimate potential for abuse. I am especially interested in your answer given your belief in the Constitution.

I would suggest that every DUI and wanted person person picked up during one of these stops stands as proof of their efficacy. But even when those aren't the result, I'm not sure these stops can be considered a "waste of man hours", as 1) they're fulfilling the entire purpose of law enforcement (ie., enforcing the law), and 2) the officer can easily be pulled off of a traffic stop by dispatch if a more serious offense actually occurs elsewhere. I certainly consider enforcement of any law to be a better use of police time than taking that 3rd private property accident report or barking dog complaint of your shift.

If an officer is in a busy beat, or humping a bunch of hot calls, he isn't typically going to be writing tickets or making traffic stops. Enforcing traffic laws is usually done either by dedicated traffic units (e.g. motor scouts) or regular patrol officers during slow periods.

inri222 06-17-15 09:42 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Anniston places 2 police officers on leave, allegations of hate group membership

http://www.al.com/news/anniston-gads...ice_offic.html

DVD Polizei 06-17-15 10:41 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12511914)
Yeah, I'm obviously no cop lover by any means (surprise!) but you'd better believe I'll be 2000% compliant with any reasonable demand from law enforcement. Pull me over and demand to see ID for whatever reason? Here you go. I'll even gift wrap the fucker and hand it over with a smile.

Never give anyone an iota of justification. You can stand up for your principles all you want, but principles aint worth dick if you're caught up with the wrong cop in the wrong mood on the wrong day. No amount of whiskey shots, false anarchist bravado, and shitty Rage Against The Machine karaoke is worth this kind of aggravation.

This. :up:

Dave99 06-17-15 11:42 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511930)
The Constitutiton wasn't violated here. But even in other circumstances where the Constitution is violated, there are remedies available.

What remedy is available to someone who gets pulled over for no valid probable cause, and instead of running/fighting/getting their ass beat, just hands over their ID and gets their bullshit warning or whatever and goes about their day after wasting 10 minutes?

kvrdave 06-18-15 12:58 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511786)
I wonder if you even bothered to read the fucking report I linked.

Easy, Trigger. You want me to fall on my sword on this one, I will. I won't pretend to be completely unbaised here, but let's not pretend that you are either (and understandably so).


Originally Posted by Pharoh
However, another reason is my general rule, one that should apply to everybody here. That is, if you ever find yourself agreeing with Dave on anything, be it advice given, a prediction, a worldview, or a simple opinion, you should probably seriously reconsider your view.

Hmmmmmmm.

EddieMoney 06-18-15 08:02 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Giantrobo (Post 12511886)
No we can't. Not really.

Really? What would justify the cop shooting an unarmed kid seven times?

CaptainMarvel 06-18-15 08:16 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by Dave99 (Post 12512038)
What remedy is available to someone who gets pulled over for no valid probable cause, and instead of running/fighting/getting their ass beat, just hands over their ID and gets their bullshit warning or whatever and goes about their day after wasting 10 minutes?

It's generally fairly easy to find a legitimate moving or equipment violation, so I wonder how likely that even is to occur in the first place. Why fabricate a stop (and risk losing your job/getting sued/getting prosecuted if it comes out, or risk getting evidence excluded) when you can almost always find a lawful, valid reason to stop somebody? And I assume you mean "no reasonable suspicion" as well as "no valid probable cause," which further narrows the scope of the issue.

But you ask what remedy is available. Choose from a Federal 1983 suit alleging violation of the driver's 4th Amendment rights (which is what was used in some of the Stop & Frisk challenges), to whatever state level court remedies are available, to using your 1st Amendment rights to record the interaction and broadcast the malfeasance to the public and press, to petitioning the local government directly on the issue to redress the problem.

Let's say you don't like those remedies: what poses the risk of greater societal harm, an officer getting away with the most benign of 4th Amendment violations (a brief peaceable detention with no search, no evidence seized, and no force used), or the danger of allowing somebody on the roadside to unilaterally conclude their stop is unlawful and forcibly resist? There are policy reasons why some states outright bar people from resisting even unlawful arrests, because that's the lesser of two evils. The officer has a built in disincentive not to commit an unlawful stop (fired/sued/arrested/evidence excluded), and that disincentive becomes more likely to be applied the more often he commits that act. And you saw exactly what can happen here when you let citizens judge the validity of their own detention, where the subject wrongly reached the conclusion that his stop was unlawful and resisted lawful arrest.


Originally Posted by kvrdave
Easy, Trigger. You want me to fall on my sword on this one, I will. I won't pretend to be completely unbaised here, but let's not pretend that you are either (and understandably so).

Manning up, admitting you were wrong, and simply letting go of a bad argument isn't "falling on your sword" as I understand the phrase, but whatever. I'm biased in the sense that if I hear a plausible story from an officer and a plausible contradictory story from somebody else, ceteris paribus I'm going to believe the officer. If there are factors indicating the officer was wrong, I'm not above saying so.

When you get to the point where you won't even believe an officer's plausible account, with corroborating physical evidence, and without any contradictory story or evidence even presented, you've crossed from being merely biased to a being an irrational kook.

CaptainMarvel 06-18-15 08:29 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by EddieMoney (Post 12512137)
Really? What would justify the cop shooting an unarmed kid seven times?

At some point, somebody is going to drill through everybody's skull the fact that an "unarmed" person can and frequently will pose a thread of imminent death or serious physical injury. If somebody mounts you and starts pummeling your face, it's not MMA... there's not a ref to stop the fight. If you're the one getting pummeled, there's no reason to suspect that the person attacking you is going to simply stop when you lose consciousness or before serious injury or death has resulted.

Even moreso if the person is willing to attack an armed officer, because if the officer loses consciousness or is incapacitated, his attacker will have ready, convenient access to the officer's firearm.

You don't get to tell people (officers or otherwise) that they have to infer that the person unlawfully assaulting them will have a sense of self-restraint.

EddieMoney 06-18-15 08:35 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12512142)
At some point, somebody is going to drill through everybody's skull the fact that an "unarmed" person can and frequently will pose a thread of imminent death or serious physical injury. If somebody mounts you and starts pummeling your face, it's not MMA... there's not a ref to stop the fight. If you're the one getting pummeled, there's no reason to suspect that the person attacking you is going to simply stop when you lose consciousness or before serious injury or death has resulted.

Even moreso if the person is willing to attack an armed officer, because if the officer loses consciousness or is incapacitated, his attacker will have ready, convenient access to the officer's firearm.

You don't get to tell people (officers or otherwise) that they have to infer that the person unlawfully assaulting them will have a sense of self-restraint.


What is the protocol for using tasers in an incident like this? I am honestly curious how that works.

CaptainMarvel 06-18-15 08:57 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by EddieMoney (Post 12512143)
What is the protocol for using tasers in an incident like this? I am honestly curious how that works.

We don't have Tasers yet (although I've been told we're getting them soon). Policies vary, but they're allowed if the person is actively/physically resistant, which you can see him being on the video (jerking his arm away while telling the officer not to touch him, for example). Maybe one of the other LEOS with a Taser can chime in if they're still here. (You can also typically use physical strikes on somebody who is actively resistant, if that gives you a sense of force allowable at that level)

A Taser was used here, but it failed. It would have been mostly useless after that point (you can drive stun somebody with it, but that only inflicts pain... it doesn't incapacitate the muscles the way the prongs do).

And once somebody is on top of you, the Taser is a terrible option, as 1) it's unreliable (meaning it can fail as here), 2) it needs to be fired from a certain distance in order to get the prong spread needed for the incapacitation to work effectively, and 3) the drive stun isn't enough to reliably stop somebody.

EddieMoney 06-18-15 09:04 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Seems we wouldn't have half of the stories in this thread if people would just fucking do what they're told to by police officers. There are exceptions, but Jesus, seems everyone feels their initial response should be to be combative.

People have watched too many Youtube videos.

DVD Josh 06-18-15 09:07 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by inri222 (Post 12511960)
Anniston places 2 police officers on leave, allegations of hate group membership

http://www.al.com/news/anniston-gads...ice_offic.html

Yet she kept getting paycheck after paycheck despite sporting "The Rachel" for season after season. Unbelievable.

kvrdave 06-18-15 11:16 AM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 
Well, let's see if a study by the DOJ is reliable enough as a source. It's a PDF, but here are a few things from the survey that I found interesting with the idea that this type of thing is just a few bad apples, because an awful lot of police seem to agree with certain things like.....

42.9% agree or strongly agree that always following the rules is not compatible with getting the job done.

Police officers in [your department] use more force than is necessary to make an arrest. NEVER 16% SELDOM 62.4% SOMETIMES, OFTEN, or ALWAYS 21.7%

So with police as the responders to a questionnaire, just over 1/5th of police sometimes, often, or always use more force than necessary. Forget those 62.4% who only do it seldom, and you still have police saying that over 20% of their colleagues use more force than necessary. That seems like a lot of isolated incidents.

Anyway, the paper has racial breakdowns on some questions, and a fair amount more, but is only 15 pages with lots of results from the study.

CaptainMarvel 06-18-15 12:12 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 12512291)
Well, let's see if a study by the DOJ is reliable enough as a source. It's a PDF, but here are a few things from the survey that I found interesting with the idea that this type of thing is just a few bad apples, because an awful lot of police seem to agree with certain things like.....

42.9% agree or strongly agree that always following the rules is not compatible with getting the job done.

Police officers in [your department] use more force than is necessary to make an arrest. NEVER 16% SELDOM 62.4% SOMETIMES, OFTEN, or ALWAYS 21.7%

So with police as the responders to a questionnaire, just over 1/5th of police sometimes, often, or always use more force than necessary. Forget those 62.4% who only do it seldom, and you still have police saying that over 20% of their colleagues use more force than necessary. That seems like a lot of isolated incidents.

Anyway, the paper has racial breakdowns on some questions, and a fair amount more, but is only 15 pages with lots of results from the study.

Well that's sure a better source than RandomAntiPoliceScreed.com or whatever site you're likely to post from next.

Instead of cherrypicking the unfavorable statistics out of that survey and ignoring the favorable ones (such as: Your police department takes a very tough stance on improper behavior by police: Strongly Agree: 35.2 / Agree: 57.4 / Disagree: 6.6 / Strongly Disagree: 0.9), why not post their overall conclusions:


Results of the survey suggest that police officers have complex and sometimes contradictory attitudes toward the abuse of authority. On the one hand, the survey reveals positive evidence of American police officers’ integrity. The majority of officers in the sample, for example, disagreed that it is acceptable to use more force than legally necessary—even to control someone who physically assaults an officer. In addition, the vast majority of responding officers described serious incidents of police abuse (such as the Rodney King and Abner Louima cases) as isolated and very rare occurrences and indicated that their departments take a tough stand on police abuse.

Notwithstanding its positive findings, the survey suggests that police abuse remains a problem that needs to be addressed by policymakers and police professionals. Even though most police officers disapprove of the use of excessive force, a substantial minority consider it acceptable to sometimes use more force than permitted by the laws that govern them. The code of silence also remains a troubling issue for American police, with approximately one-quarter of police officers surveyed stating that whistle blowing is not worth it, two-thirds reporting that police officers who report misconduct are likely to receive a “cold shoulder” from fellow officers, and more than one-half reporting that it is not unusual for police officers to turn a “blind eye” to improper conduct by other officers. These findings suggest that the culture of silence that has continually plagued the reform of American policing continues.

Pharoh 06-18-15 12:33 PM

Re: The "Cops Behaving Badly" Thread
 

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel (Post 12511937)
I would suggest that every DUI and wanted person person picked up during one of these stops stands as proof of their efficacy. But even when those aren't the result, I'm not sure these stops can be considered a "waste of man hours", as 1) they're fulfilling the entire purpose of law enforcement (ie., enforcing the law), and 2) the officer can easily be pulled off of a traffic stop by dispatch if a more serious offense actually occurs elsewhere. I certainly consider enforcement of any law to be a better use of police time than taking that 3rd private property accident report or barking dog complaint of your shift.

If an officer is in a busy beat, or humping a bunch of hot calls, he isn't typically going to be writing tickets or making traffic stops. Enforcing traffic laws is usually done either by dedicated traffic units (e.g. motor scouts) or regular patrol officers during slow periods.


Good point as to what officers are normally doing such stops, and the relative ease to move such officers to more pressing violations.

However, those singular successes don't really speak to the overall efficacy, especially in light of the seeming growing antipathy towards police. (I haven't seen any numbers on that, just my impression.) For example, wouldn't increased restriction on gun access stop some murders? Wouldn't more stringent background checks and wait periods do the same?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 AM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.