Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2021, 02:59 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: So you would agree firearms are a problem then?

In the hands of criminals, absolutely.  That's never changed.  Thankfully, there's an easy solution to this.  Aggressively prosecute and incarcerate criminals who use a firearm.  It was working from ~1992 until 2019.

[CJD]

(04-15-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It'd amazing that you can ascribe so many reasons for him to not comply, but can't seem to fathom even one reason for the police to believe this was a high risk traffic stop.  You keep glossing over this point, he had to be instructed to show his hands around ten times before he finally complied.  Give him the benefit of the doubt for the first five, which is excessive, that still leaves five more before compliance. 



I've been in two instances in which the vehicle I was in was topped and the police had us at gun point.  In both scenarios everyone complied as instructed in a timely manner and they both ended completely peacefully with zero issue.




This statement is borderline insane and indicative of just how much anti cop propaganda has permeated our society.



There is zero logic to this.  If he really thought the police wanted to kill him, why would he not follow their commands and make them even more suspicious of him?



Ahh, human emotion for the guy pulled over, but not for the police who could very possibly have feared they were being set up.  I've mentioned before, and everyone ignores, an insane amount of felony arrests occur during routine traffic stops.  In fact, a traffic stop is one of the most dangerous things an LEO can do.



That's odd, because my friends and I managed to comply with officer's instructions under the exact same set of circumstances.



Except this guy didn't "shut down" he continued to argue with the officers and tell them why he refused to comply.




Got it, so now everyone has license to act a damned fool when held at gunpoint by law enforcement.  That kind of excuse making won't have any far reaching consequences at all.




Yes, it is always best to be slow and deliberate.  It is also best to follow all instructions in a timely manner without argument.

This all ties back into the power dynamic between cops and the people they pull over. The person who is pulled over has no power. The cop has all of the power. While his statements of not wanting to come out of the car may have been technically illegal (The whole "what do you have to do when a cop approaches you" is a much debated topic and I think the written laws and the applied rules are often not the same), they are understandable given this gigantic disparity in power between the two parties.



Look, I get what you're saying.  However, if the police already believe the stop warrants high risk tactics then failing to comply only reinforces that position.  In both instances in which my friends and I were stopped the police were looking for another similar vehicle.  I know this because on one of them they flat out told me as they were wrapping up and the second because after they stopped us, we left our friend's house about ten minutes later and passed the exact same type of car pulled over by multiple units with gang members six gang members all on the curb cuffed up.  So, you have no idea why the police are responding the way that they are.  In 9,999 cases out of 10,000 if you've done nothing wrong and comply you'll leave the situation completely unscathed in any way.


Again, you assume a lot.  If the police feel the need to execute a high risk stop it's not your job to debate with them about why it's not necessary.  Just do what you're instructed to do.  You may have a point though, all the anti-cop propaganda may have affected this Lt. to the point where he's not able to act rationally when stopped by the police.

It isn't anti-cop propaganda to believe that police should treat people they pull over as humans. I did not see humane treatment in the video I saw, so I am judging it based on that understanding of the situation. You say I'm assuming a lot in favor of the one pulled over and not for the cops and you are correct. Like I said, the ones in power are responsible for the situation, not the powerless. If the police behaved humanely, I don't think this is news at all. The man would be "non-compliant" in the face of reasonable police work and he'd look like a fool. But they arguably did not approach him reasonably, they definitely did not treat him reasonably once they did approach him and now are being judged based on that.

You are hyper focusing on the high risk stop behavior. So, let's say they fear he is armed and dangerous. So they pulls guns on him immediately, yell immediately etc. Let's assume that this was 100% correct and in protocol. That still doesn't answer the question of why, once they identified that he was clearly not a threat (his hands were out, he was obviously not armed and was trying to speak to them calmly) did the police continue to be escalating, aggressive and violent, culminating in macing the man? Your argument for treating it as a hostile stop completely falls apart once they identified he was not hostile and still treated him as a hostile suspect.

Unless, of course, you are equating not doing everything the police say out of fear (as the man clearly stated once they actually approached his car) with violence and hostility.

Which I hope you understand is an absurd stance to take.

To me, it seems as though they were offended that he didn't comply with their commands, despite being completely non-hostile, so they assaulted him out of spite, not good police practice. And that tells me that the hostile approach was probably also unnecessary. You call it assumption. I call it interpolation. If they were aggressive and violent after identifying they weren't in danger, it's hard for me to believe that they ever actually believed they were in danger to begin with.

I will say that this applies mostly to the second police officer, the one whose camera footage we have. The first cop did actually seem like he was trying to de-escalate. He was doing it poorly, but he at least seemed to be trying. The second cop was the one who was escalating and ultimately the one who assaulted the man. But the first cop still did not reign in his escalating co-worker, so I can't fully excuse his behavior either.

Can you accept that olive branch?

[Brownshoe]

I think the first police officer was unprofessional by drawing his gun right away. BUT I'll say that there could have been a reason why, like recently a car with that description was stolen, ect. As of right now I see it as unprofessional, unless evidence comes out otherwise since the police office already punished him. I think that everyone in the video was in the wrong. Imo the police were more in the wrong, but you can't ignore that the guy wasn't complying at all.


You do also have to remember things like this happens to police officers all the time and no one hears about it at all.
https://youtu.be/rH6bsr61vrw

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2021, 04:42 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It isn't anti-cop propaganda to believe that police should treat people they pull over as humans.

I was referring to your statement that they were "out for blood".  Let me clue you in on something, no LEO goes to work yearning for their chance to kill someone that day.  This was always true, but it's especially true now given the guilty until proven innocent mind set many in this country have on LEO involved shootings.  

Quote:I did not see humane treatment in the video I saw, so I am judging it based on that understanding of the situation. You say I'm assuming a lot in favor of the one pulled over and not for the cops and you are correct. Like I said, the ones in power are responsible for the situation, not the powerless. If the police behaved humanely, I don't think this is news at all. The man would be "non-compliant" in the face of reasonable police work and he'd look like a fool. But they arguably did not approach him reasonably, they definitely did not treat him reasonably once they did approach him and now are being judged based on that.

You are hyper focusing on the high risk stop behavior. So, let's say they fear he is armed and dangerous. So they pulls guns on him immediately, yell immediately etc. Let's assume that this was 100% correct and in protocol. That still doesn't answer the question of why, once they identified that he was clearly not a threat (his hands were out, he was obviously not armed and was trying to speak to them calmly) did the police continue to be escalating, aggressive and violent, culminating in macing the man? Your argument for treating it as a hostile stop completely falls apart once they identified he was not hostile and still treated him as a hostile suspect.

How is he clearly not a threat when he continues to refuse to leave his vehicle?  You have zero idea what he may have on the passenger seat next to him, wedged between his seat and the center console, etc.  There's a wide range of interaction between high risk, at gun point, and treating the person as wholly "not a threat".  As stated by me earlier, that should have, and could have happened, but the Lt. did everything as wrong as you can do them, which didn't help at all.

Quote:Unless, of course, you are equating not doing everything the police say out of fear (as the man clearly stated once they actually approached his car) with violence and hostility.

Which I hope you understand is an absurd stance to take.

Deliberate non-compliance is always a cause for concern.  Why are they being non-compliant?  Google traffic stop murders and see very similar behavior from criminals who ended up killing the officer involved.  Not to mention the thousands more such incidents that don't result in officer death, but varying degrees of injury.  You keep going on about the officers but continue to completely absolve the Lt. for his major role in this confrontation.  I admitted wrong doing by the second officer very early on, I've yet to see one person on the other side acknowledge just how much the Lt. helped create this situation.

Quote:To me, it seems as though they were offended that he didn't comply with their commands, despite being completely non-hostile, so they assaulted him out of spite, not good police practice. And that tells me that the hostile approach was probably also unnecessary. You call it assumption. I call it interpolation. If they were aggressive and violent after identifying they weren't in danger, it's hard for me to believe that they ever actually believed they were in danger to begin with.

These kind of comments right here are why people in the law enforcement community are always exasperated when discussing this type of topic.  You're ascribing a non-violent motive to the Lt.'s non-compliance as if the officers should automatically know this.  Non-compliance, of any sort, automatically sets off warning bells.  You don't get to say it's "non-violent" non-compliance so lets everyone calm down.

Quote:I will say that this applies mostly to the second police officer, the one whose camera footage we have. The first cop did actually seem like he was trying to de-escalate. He was doing it poorly, but he at least seemed to be trying. The second cop was the one who was escalating and ultimately the one who assaulted the man. But the first cop still did not reign in his escalating co-worker, so I can't fully excuse his behavior either.

Can you accept that olive branch?

I don't see us as being at war, so no olive branch is necessary.  I just see a lot of people in this thread regurgitating the media position on law enforcement and calling out certain actions from a position of ignorance stated as expertise.  Like I said, it's going to get worse before it gets better and everyone who's not a criminal is going to pay the price. 

[CJD]

(04-19-2021, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was referring to your statement that they were "out for blood".  Let me clue you in on something, no LEO goes to work yearning for their chance to kill someone that day.  This was always true, but it's especially true now given the guilty until proven innocent mind set many in this country have on LEO involved shootings.  

"Out for blood" is a common phrase usually used for people who are not in control of their emotions, specifically when that lack of control manifests in violent or manic outbursts, as with the 2nd officer. I won't use that particular phrase to describe actions such as those of the 2nd officer to prevent this misunderstanding in the future.

Quote:How is he clearly not a threat when he continues to refuse to leave his vehicle?  You have zero idea what he may have on the passenger seat next to him, wedged between his seat and the center console, etc.  There's a wide range of interaction between high risk, at gun point, and treating the person as wholly "not a threat".  As stated by me earlier, that should have, and could have happened, but the Lt. did everything as wrong as you can do them, which didn't help at all.


Deliberate non-compliance is always a cause for concern.  Why are they being non-compliant?  Google traffic stop murders and see very similar behavior from criminals who ended up killing the officer involved.  Not to mention the thousands more such incidents that don't result in officer death, but varying degrees of injury.  You keep going on about the officers but continue to completely absolve the Lt. for his major role in this confrontation.  I admitted wrong doing by the second officer very early on, I've yet to see one person on the other side acknowledge just how much the Lt. helped create this situation.

Because his hands were out and was speaking calmly. If he reached back in to the vehicle and reached for something without announcing it, that is a hostile action. Saying "I don't feel safe leaving my car [due to the behaviors you are exhibiting]" is not hostile and shouldn't be treated as such.

You've mentioned how dangerous traffic stops are for cops multiple times now. If they are this dangerous, then I would think there'd be a movement to cut down on them except in extreme cases (like drunk driving, aggressive speeding and weaving in traffic etc) just for the police officers' safety. No one is dying from this guy having tinted windows and having a temporary tag, as is my understanding with this scenario (or, in other cases, having an air freshener in their car).

Not to mention how dangerous and stress inducing they are to the people being pulled over. It sounds like they're just wholly a negative sum game, so why even do them when no one is in danger from the driver's actions?

Quote:These kind of comments right here are why people in the law enforcement community are always exasperated when discussing this type of topic.  You're ascribing a non-violent motive to the Lt.'s non-compliance as if the officers should automatically know this.  Non-compliance, of any sort, automatically sets off warning bells.  You don't get to say it's "non-violent" non-compliance so lets everyone calm down.

I don't see us as being at war, so no olive branch is necessary.  I just see a lot of people in this thread regurgitating the media position on law enforcement and calling out certain actions from a position of ignorance stated as expertise.  Like I said, it's going to get worse before it gets better and everyone who's not a criminal is going to pay the price. 

Maybe law enforcement communities should be less concerned with defending people like the 2nd officer then maybe it would be less exasperating having to explain why their uncalled for violence actually isn't uncalled for. I "get to" say it's non-violent non-compliance because it objectively is. Violence is a word that has a meaning and "maybe, possibly, per chance, he may do something violent if we don't mace him right now" is not in that list of definitions.

Throughout this conversation you have mentioned my "bias" multiple times. From bringing up "anti-cop propaganda," to me, apparently, being a slave to the media narrative that cops are bad (I'd dispute whether or not that media narrative is as holistic as you seem to think, but that's a different topic). I would suggest that you take a critical view of what you're saying and consider that maybe you are projecting your bias on to me. It's obvious that you have a pro-police bias (for obvious reasons) and will defend them in many circumstances where they don't deserve defense, whereas I have no reason to be biased against police other than their actions being wrong.

And I'm not even saying all the police are bad in this scenario. Just the one specific police officer. Like I said with my olive branch, the first cop was mostly fine, other than not attempting to control the aggressive cop, which I think is, if not reasonable, at least understandable since they share a community (of police) and all that. So if I'm biased against police, why would I ever give that one a pass? Your narrative doesn't really add up in a variety of ways, not in the actual behaviors of the police and the man nor in your claims of my bias in evaluating the situation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2021, 12:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: "Out for blood" is a common phrase usually used for people who are not in control of their emotions, specifically when that lack of control manifests in violent or manic outbursts, as with the 2nd officer. I won't use that particular phrase to describe actions such as those of the 2nd officer to prevent this misunderstanding in the future.

I appreciate it, as the phrase isn't a good one to use given the view of many that LEO's are just looking for any excuse to kill anyone who isn't white.

Quote:Because his hands were out and was speaking calmly. If he reached back in to the vehicle and reached for something without announcing it, that is a hostile action. Saying "I don't feel safe leaving my car [due to the behaviors you are exhibiting]" is not hostile and shouldn't be treated as such.

Except he didn't just say that, he also refused to exit the care because he "didn't have to".  You can't have it both ways here.  He continually debated with the officers about what he would and would not do, in fact his statement of fear came about midway through the confrontation.  Saying you're afraid of a confrontation you significantly contributed towards escalating is not a valid excuse.

Quote:You've mentioned how dangerous traffic stops are for cops multiple times now. If they are this dangerous, then I would think there'd be a movement to cut down on them except in extreme cases (like drunk driving, aggressive speeding and weaving in traffic etc) just for the police officers' safety. No one is dying from this guy having tinted windows and having a temporary tag, as is my understanding with this scenario (or, in other cases, having an air freshener in their car).

Not to mention how dangerous and stress inducing they are to the people being pulled over. It sounds like they're just wholly a negative sum game, so why even do them when no one is in danger from the driver's actions?

At some point people on your side of the fence are going to have to make up their minds.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard from the usual suspects on this board statements along the line of, "if you can't do the job then quit".  You want traffic stops to decrease because of uncommon incidents such as this, fine.  Just own it when you get a spike in traffic fatalities caused by an increase in speeding (not aggressive speeding whatever that is).  Why even bother paying for your registration or getting license plates if the police won't stop you for it?

Quote:Maybe law enforcement communities should be less concerned with defending people like the 2nd officer then maybe it would be less exasperating having to explain why their uncalled for violence actually isn't uncalled for. I "get to" say it's non-violent non-compliance because it objectively is. Violence is a word that has a meaning and "maybe, possibly, per chance, he may do something violent if we don't mace him right now" is not in that list of definitions.

Maybe if the anti-law enforcement side of this argument didn't lump all LEO's into one group and make statements like policing is racist then it would be easier for the pro law enforcement community to actually have a rational discussion.  Extreme rhetoric only makes people dig in their heels.  The number of people, of any color, who are killed by police that shouldn't have been is, at the extreme high end, around 200, and I honestly think it's sub 100.  Every one of those mistakes is tragic, especially for those directly affected.  It is not a national crisis and it is not an epidemic.  Medical doctors kill 100,000's of people a year by making mistakes, yet there is zero outrage or news coverage of that.  While I get that the "state sanctioned" part of a wrongful police killing, it clearly shows that people's lives are not the real concern here, it's an agenda.  It's no different than wanting to ban "assault weapons" even though the kill only around a 100 or so people a year. 

Quote:Throughout this conversation you have mentioned my "bias" multiple times. From bringing up "anti-cop propaganda," to me, apparently, being a slave to the media narrative that cops are bad (I'd dispute whether or not that media narrative is as holistic as you seem to think, but that's a different topic). I would suggest that you take a critical view of what you're saying and consider that maybe you are projecting your bias on to me. It's obvious that you have a pro-police bias (for obvious reasons) and will defend them in many circumstances where they don't deserve defense, whereas I have no reason to be biased against police other than their actions being wrong.

I wouldn't say a slave, you are certainly making an honest effort to actually debate the topic, which is far more than most do.  But you do repeat a lot of points that get hammered repeatedly by the media.  As for my defending them when they don't deserve it, simply point one such instance out.  If you're going to cite this one, I already acknowledged wrong doing on the part of one officer.  If you're suggesting that the initial officer was objectively wrong, and there can be no discussion on that, then I'd say your position would be the extreme one, not mine.

I can cite numerous times in which I flat out called the officer's actions wrong; the Tamir Rice shooting, the Philando Castile shooting, the Daniel Shaver shooting (the most egregious example I've ever seen but got very little attention from the media for some reason), the way in which the officer arrested Sandra Bland (she absolutely should have been arrested, but he should have waited for back up to make the arrest less violent), etc.  So please don't make it out that I knee jerk defend law enforcement, because that's simply not true.  In fact, I've stated for years in this forum that many agencies back east are undertrained, a problem that will not be helped by "defunding the police".

Quote:And I'm not even saying all the police are bad in this scenario. Just the one specific police officer.

Which is exactly what I said in the third post I made in this thread.  

Quote:Like I said with my olive branch, the first cop was mostly fine, other than not attempting to control the aggressive cop, which I think is, if not reasonable, at least understandable since they share a community (of police) and all that. So if I'm biased against police, why would I ever give that one a pass? Your narrative doesn't really add up in a variety of ways, not in the actual behaviors of the police and the man nor in your claims of my bias in evaluating the situation.

I think I've already addressed your "bias", or rather my perception of some of your statements.  As for "controlling" the second officer, you don't know if that officer was senior, which makes "controlling" him rather problematic, and in any event, he did try to defuse the situation several times, but neither the Lt. or the second officer were interested in taking him up on that.

[CJD]

(04-19-2021, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate it, as the phrase isn't a good one to use given the view of many that LEO's are just looking for any excuse to kill anyone who isn't white.




Except he didn't just say that, he also refused to exit the care because he "didn't have to".  You can't have it both ways here.  He continually debated with the officers about what he would and would not do, in fact his statement of fear came about midway through the confrontation.  Saying you're afraid of a confrontation you significantly contributed towards escalating is not a valid excuse.



At some point people on your side of the fence are going to have to make up their minds.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard from the usual suspects on this board statements along the line of, "if you can't do the job then quit".  You want traffic stops to decrease because of uncommon incidents such as this, fine.  Just own it when you get a spike in traffic fatalities caused by an increase in speeding (not aggressive speeding whatever that is).  Why even bother paying for your registration or getting license plates if the police won't stop you for it?




Maybe if the anti-law enforcement side of this argument didn't lump all LEO's into one group and make statements like policing is racist then it would be easier for the pro law enforcement community to actually have a rational discussion.  Extreme rhetoric only makes people dig in their heels.  The number of people, of any color, who are killed by police that shouldn't have been is, at the extreme high end, around 200, and I honestly think it's sub 100.  Every one of those mistakes is tragic, especially for those directly affected.  It is not a national crisis and it is not an epidemic.  Medical doctors kill 100,000's of people a year by making mistakes, yet there is zero outrage or news coverage of that.  While I get that the "state sanctioned" part of a wrongful police killing, it clearly shows that people's lives are not the real concern here, it's an agenda.  It's no different than wanting to ban "assault weapons" even though the kill only around a 100 or so people a year. 




I wouldn't say a slave, you are certainly making an honest effort to actually debate the topic, which is far more than most do.  But you do repeat a lot of points that get hammered repeatedly by the media.  As for my defending them when they don't deserve it, simply point one such instance out.  If you're going to cite this one, I already acknowledged wrong doing on the part of one officer.  If you're suggesting that the initial officer was objectively wrong, and there can be no discussion on that, then I'd say your position would be the extreme one, not mine.

I can cite numerous times in which I flat out called the officer's actions wrong; the Tamir Rice shooting, the Philando Castile shooting, the Daniel Shaver shooting (the most egregious example I've ever seen but got very little attention from the media for some reason), the way in which the officer arrested Sandra Bland (she absolutely should have been arrested, but he should have waited for back up to make the arrest less violent), etc.  So please don't make it out that I knee jerk defend law enforcement, because that's simply not true.  In fact, I've stated for years in this forum that many agencies back east are undertrained, a problem that will not be helped by "defunding the police".



Which is exactly what I said in the third post I made in this thread.  


I think I've already addressed your "bias", or rather my perception of some of your statements.  As for "controlling" the second officer, you don't know if that officer was senior, which makes "controlling" him rather problematic, and in any event, he did try to defuse the situation several times, but neither the Lt. or the second officer were interested in taking him up on that.

It sounds like we mostly agree on the topic then, with the one exception being you feel I am not critical enough of the Lt. 

As far as the number of murders being lower than medical mistakes, I think the reason we talk about the police murders is because of the aforementioned power dynamic. There's a reason we speak for weeks about politicians who do something wrong even when their crime is not always a major crime or, in some cases, even illegal. When a person or group of people are given power over other people, it's natural and expected for their actions to be scrutinized far more than any other group of people. We should be holding people in positions of power to a higher standard, not to the same standard and certainly not to a lower standard. And it's also worth noting that murders aren't the definitive number when it comes to police violence. A member of the state committing violence of any kind on its citizens should be roundly condemned, no matter how uncommon it is. And when there are racial biases attached to that, it starts to get really messy.

This next point doesn't directly follow my previous point, per se, but the Shaver shooting is particularly egregious because not only did the police officer not face consequences for that blatantly terrible murder, but he actually was allowed to retire on medical grounds and collect a pension for the "trauma" that he suffered for having murdered him. I noticed your comment about it not being discussed for some reason as an indictment on the racialization of police violence. I personally see police violence as a socio economic issue more than anything. It just so happens minorities and poverty heavily intersect, for historically racist reasons. I don't think it's correct to state that police violence is only an issue for minorities, but I do think it's correct to state it disproportionately affects minorities due to socio economic issues. 

I think the Shaver's murder was more an outlier than anything else, as Shaver isn't particularly poor nor is he a minority, which is why it probably didn't gain as much notoriety. Him being white undeniably helped also, of course. We've spoken about narratives and his murder was a circle peg in a square hold narrative. However, I think the initial reaction to the murder was also fairly different, as the officer was charged almost immediately (something like a month later following an investigation) and the charge did not require public outrage to be reached. Unfortunately, it ended in the same way, with the murderer walking free.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2021, 01:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It sounds like we mostly agree on the topic then, with the one exception being you feel I am not critical enough of the Lt.

Pretty much.  If he had just exhibited a moderate level of compliance instead of refusing, arguing and debating then this whole thing would almost certainly have been handled without incident. 

Quote:As far as the number of murders being lower than medical mistakes, I think the reason we talk about the police murders is because of the aforementioned power dynamic. There's a reason we speak for weeks about politicians who do something wrong even when their crime is not always a major crime or, in some cases, even illegal. When a person or group of people are given power over other people, it's natural and expected for their actions to be scrutinized far more than any other group of people. We should be holding people in positions of power to a higher standard, not to the same standard and certainly not to a lower standard. And it's also worth noting that murders aren't the definitive number when it comes to police violence. A member of the state committing violence of any kind on its citizens should be roundly condemned, no matter how uncommon it is. And when there are racial biases attached to that, it starts to get really messy.

I have zero issue with it being condemned.  I have a major issue with it being treated like an epidemic.  You have very powerful people in this country labeling law enforcement as a whole as a racist institution.  This is beyond stupid.  It's both hyperbolic and dangerous in the extreme.

Quote:This next point doesn't directly follow my previous point, per se, but the Shaver shooting is particularly egregious because not only did the police officer not face consequences for that blatantly terrible murder, but he actually was allowed to retire on medical grounds and collect a pension for the "trauma" that he suffered for having murdered him. I noticed your comment about it not being discussed for some reason as an indictment on the racialization of police violence. I personally see police violence as a socio economic issue more than anything. It just so happens minorities and poverty heavily intersect, for historically racist reasons. I don't think it's correct to state that police violence is only an issue for minorities, but I do think it's correct to state it disproportionately affects minorities due to socio economic issues. 

For sure, if only because people of lower socioeconomic status are more frequently going to be involved in street level offenses that trigger this type of police interaction.  They are also more likely, by dint of being poor, to have a vehicle with problems that would cause an LEO to pull the vehicle over.

Quote:I think the Shaver's murder was more an outlier than anything else, as Shaver isn't particularly poor nor is he a minority, which is why it probably didn't gain as much notoriety. Him being white undeniably helped also, of course. We've spoken about narratives and his murder was a circle peg in a square hold narrative. However, I think the initial reaction to the murder was also fairly different, as the officer was charged almost immediately (something like a month later following an investigation) and the charge did not require public outrage to be reached. Unfortunately, it ended in the same way, with the murderer walking free.

Absolutely, and it is this narrative that I believe is causing so much harm and distrust.  Studies have shown that LEO's are more likely to shoot a white offender than a black one.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

But that doesn't fit the narrative, so it is ignored.  There's a lot of people making a lot of money on race hustling right now and there's a lot of politicians making a lot of political hay the same way.  It's a bad combination, it's volatile and we're all going to pay the price for it.

[CJD]

(04-19-2021, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pretty much.  If he had just exhibited a moderate level of compliance instead of refusing, arguing and debating then this whole thing would almost certainly have been handled without incident. 




I have zero issue with it being condemned.  I have a major issue with it being treated like an epidemic.  You have very powerful people in this country labeling law enforcement as a whole as a racist institution.  This is beyond stupid.  It's both hyperbolic and dangerous in the extreme.



For sure, if only because people of lower socioeconomic status are more frequently going to be involved in street level offenses that trigger this type of police interaction.  They are also more likely, by dint of being poor, to have a vehicle with problems that would cause an LEO to pull the vehicle over.


Absolutely, and it is this narrative that I believe is causing so much harm and distrust.  Studies have shown that LEO's are more likely to shoot a white offender than a black one.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

But that doesn't fit the narrative, so it is ignored.  There's a lot of people making a lot of money on race hustling right now and there's a lot of politicians making a lot of political hay the same way.  It's a bad combination, it's volatile and we're all going to pay the price for it.

I'm not an expert in statistical evaluation nor am I extremely well versed in the study of the statistics surrounding these types of things. The studies I've been presented do say that more white people are shot than black people, but as far as I'm aware those statistics don't account for the fact that white people make up a significantly larger percentage of the population, so those raw numbers don't mean a whole lot with that additional context.

Regardless of statistics, which can be bent to say what you need them to say in many cases, I will say that black people, in general, seem to have developed a large distrust of police because of the pre-civil rights and Jim Crow policing which was objectively and outwardly racist, not to mention the drug war, which was at the very least engineered by racists such as Richard Nixon. Those black people are still alive and they are raising their children to be wary of the police as well. And racism didn't vanish in 1964. It is slowly decreasing over time (in theory), so the 70s and 80s likely had a ton of racist policing in them as well. 

When you combine that built in skepticism and, to some degree, culture that was created and defined from a time that was outwardly racist with the socio economic status of a lot of black people in this country leading to more run ins with the cops than your typical white person and throw in a dash of media sensationalism, you have a cocktail for a lot of social unrest. And individual police are not doing the situation any favors when stories like this, Adam Toledo, Daunte Wright come out. And the right wing is definitely not doing the situation any favors when they try to defend the police who carry out those shootings.

I have no doubts that there are racist cops. There are racist everythings, because there are a fair number of racists in this country (just like the black people who didn't trust cops because of their treatment in the 60s and prior and taught their children in kind, there were racists from the 60s also raising their children to keep those beliefs as well etc). I don't think police as a whole are actively racist. I just think racism is baked into our society so deep that we sometimes can't even detect it.

I went to college UC which was right above Over the Rhine, a historically poor, black neighborhood with one of the highest crime rates in the city, if not the entire state. We went there during a time in which OTR was being renovated and gentrified to have a lot of trendy restaurants and fancy condominiums, so a lot of poor, majority black people were being "pushed" (for lack of a better term) out of their neighborhood and up into the Clifton area, where UC is. This happened to be occurring at the same time that there was a significant spike in muggings around the campus. We got an email about every single reported mugging/rape/violent crime in the UC area and they came in basically every day and several over each weekend. The suspects were majority black. This led to a general leeriness among students of black people late at night.

I had a friend who I'd like to believe was not racist. We were studying late at night on campus and we were getting ready to go home and he said, "I'm going to take a taxi home. I know it's not far but I just don't want to risk encountering any black  --  I mean muggers on the way home."

Now, maybe that was just a slip of the tongue. Maybe he was thinking of the most recent email and it just popped out of his mouth without him thinking. But he had subconsciously linked crime and black people because of these emails we were receiving.

I don't think its unreasonable that the same thing is happening to police. When the majority of the people you deal with happen to be black (because, as we mentioned, the high intersection of poverty with black people and the high intersection of poverty with crime), I don't think it's unreasonable that cops may start to associate black people with crime and, subconsciously or otherwise, treat them differently to white people.

That doesn't make those cops racist, but it does affect their ability to interact with black people in a fair and measured way, as we witnessed here with the 2nd cop. Was his behavior due to the man's race? I have no idea.

But I don't blame onlookers for thinking it may have something to do with it. Expand that out across the entire country and I think you'll realize why people tend to fear that police may be institutionally racist.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Well this isn't related to this incident, but I didn't want to start a new thread on it since the old one was closed.

But for the Chauvin trial, is there any credence to an appeal on the grounds that the decision of the jury couldn't be made fairly due to the large amount of eyes and potential danger from an verdict besides guilty?

And also do appeal trials go by jury as well?

[Stewy]

(04-24-2021, 12:07 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well this isn't related to this incident, but I didn't want to start a new thread on it since the old one was closed.

But for the Chauvin trial, is there any credence to an appeal on the grounds that the decision of the jury couldn't be made fairly due to the large amount of eyes and potential danger from an verdict besides guilty?

And also do appeal trials go by jury as well?

The defense tried to get the trial moved to a different county.  The judge denied it on the grounds that due to the publicity, everywhere would be the same.  It follows that there is no where that the jurors would be under any less pressure or fear than the original trial, so unless the jurors come out and say they were afraid for there lives if they didnt convict, then there wont be grounds for appeal in regard to jury prejudice.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(04-24-2021, 04:41 AM)Stewy Wrote: The defense tried to get the trial moved to a different county.  The judge denied it on the grounds that due to the publicity, everywhere would be the same.  It follows that there is no where that the jurors would be under any less pressure or fear than the original trial, so unless the jurors come out and say they were afraid for there lives if they didnt convict, then there wont be grounds for appeal in regard to jury prejudice.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but if they were afraid to not convict why on Earth would they ever admit that? They could still be in danger for providing any kind of ground for appeal.

That's of course assuming we know the juror's identities or can find them out.

[Stewy]

(04-24-2021, 04:55 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Maybe I'm just stupid, but if they were afraid to not convict why on Earth would they ever admit that? They could still be in danger for providing any kind of ground for appeal.

That's of course assuming we know the juror's identities or can find them out.

I didn't say i believed the juror's were afraid to convict.  Personally I feel they fulfilled their duties and convicted properly.

However, it is absolutely a "theme" out there in the media that the jurors convicted based on fear, and that goes along with the judge saying the Cali' congresswoman was providing a grounds for appeal by inciting the public with hate speech, thus putting pressure on the jury.

[GMDino]

Naturally they will investigate themselves. And interestingly the prosecutor found they didn't find they violated state law...which really makes me wonder what else they can do to you "legally" and then not press charges.

https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-virginia-norfolk-civil-rights-violations-us-army-0187b2d78ea0a92db6b50891592635c9?taid=62e9a159c5f2d200019ced1e&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Quote:No charges for officer who pepper-sprayed Army lieutenant


By BEN FINLEY
yesterday

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — A former police officer in Virginia should not be criminally charged but should be investigated for potential civil rights violations after he pepper-sprayed, struck and handcuffed a Black U.S. Army lieutenant during a 2020 traffic stop, a special prosecutor has determined.

The prosecutor’s findings are the latest fallout from a confrontation involving two police officers and a uniformed military officer that drew outrage and national attention to the small town of Windsor, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) southeast of Richmond.

The man who was pulled over, Caron Nazario, was never charged. Video of the December 2020 traffic stop surfaced in April 2021 after Nazario sued in federal court, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. The images sparked outrage and served as a grim reminder to many Black Americans that a military uniform doesn’t necessarily protect against mistreatment by police.

In December, then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s office sued the town, alleging that it operated in a way that discriminated against Black Americans.

One of the officers, Joe Gutierrez, was fired from the department. He was the target of the special prosecutor’s criminal probe.

“Although I find the video very disturbing and frankly unsettling, Gutierrez’s use of force to remove Nazario did not violate state law as he had given multiple commands for Nazario to exit the vehicle,” special prosecutor Anton Bell said in his report, dated July 29 and posted online by Nazario’s attorneys.

“The problematic issue, however, were Gutierrez’s statements throughout the entire ordeal, which would lead a reasonable person to wonder whether underlying bias was at the root of how and why Nazario was treated in like manner,” Bell wrote.

Bell’s findings were first reported Monday by The Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

The incident began when Nazario was driving home from his duty station, according to his lawsuit. Officer Daniel Crocker radioed that he was attempting to stop a vehicle with no rear license plate and tinted windows.

Crocker said the driver was “eluding police” and he considered it a “high-risk traffic stop,” according to a report that’s included in the lawsuit. One of Nazario’s attorneys, Jonathan Arthur, later explained that Nazario was trying to stop in a well-lit area “for officer safety and out of respect for the officers.”

The other officer, Gutierrez, was driving by and decided to join the traffic stop, the lawsuit stated. By the time the two officers reached Nazario’s SUV, the license plate was visible in the rear.

When Nazario stopped at a well-lit gas station, the two officers immediately drew their guns and pointed them at Nazario, his lawsuit alleges. The officers then attempted to pull Nazario out of the vehicle while he continued to keep his hands in the air. Gutierrez pepper-sprayed Nazario multiple times as the officers yelled for him to get out.

At one point, Gutierrez told Nazario he was “fixin’ to ride the lightning,” a reference to the electric chair that was also a line from the movie “The Green Mile,” a film about a Black man facing execution, the lawsuit said.

Nazario got out and asked for a supervisor. Gutierrez responded with “knee-strikes” to his legs, knocking him to the ground, the lawsuit says. The two officers struck him multiple times, then handcuffed and interrogated him.

The traffic stop was captured on Nazario’s cellphone as well as the officer’s body-worn cameras.

Tom Roberts, another attorney representing Nazario, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that a judge or a jury, not a special prosecutor, should have determined whether Gutierrez violated the law.

“I think that there’s sufficient evidence to show that he was intentional in his actions,” Roberts said. “And I believe that he exceeded any authority to use force, and therefore he committed assault and battery.”

Roberts said that would have been a misdemeanor offense, for which the statute of limitations is one year, well before the special prosecutor released his findings.

“All too often, when it comes to law enforcement violating the laws, we see our Commonwealth’s Attorneys fail to apply the same zeal at prosecuting law enforcement as they do with other offenders,” Roberts’ firm said in a statement.


John Becker Mumford Jr., an attorney listed for Gutierrez in Nazario’s lawsuit, did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Bell, the special prosecutor, wrote that he asked the local U.S. Attorney’s Office to review the case for possible civil rights violations. Karoline Foote, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, said Tuesday that the office had no comment.

In February, the town of Windsor asked a court to dismiss the state attorney general’s lawsuit, arguing that it only refers to one person — Nazario — “in a cursory and inconclusive manner.”

Jason Miyares, who defeated Herring in November’s election, took over as Virginia’s AG in January. Victoria LaCivita, a spokeswoman for Miyares’ office, said Tuesday that the lawsuit is still pending.

One officer was fired.  I wonder if he simply went to work somewhere else?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

[Arturo Bandini]

I absolutely don't understand why people love the police so much. I don't.

I never needed them during all my life. They just annoy people at will.

That's one of the major differences between Europe and US.

We don't love our police that much and clearly don't idolize them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-03-2022, 02:35 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I absolutely don't understand why people love the police so much. I don't.

I don't think most people do.  I think they see them as people doing a difficult, and usually thankless, job.  Think about it this way, if you an encounter with the police it's almost always going to be a negative for you.  Either you just got pulled over for speeding, or something else, you were the victim of a crime, which obviously sucks, or you're a criminal getting arrested.  

Quote:I never needed them during all my life.

Oh, well as long as you don't need them. 

Quote:They just annoy people at will.

This is a silly statement.

Quote:That's one of the major differences between Europe and US.

We don't love our police that much and clearly don't idolize them.

Yeah, again, we don't here either.  I think you're confusing people pushing back against the anti-law enforcement crowd, and showing support, with unconditional praise.  While those types of people do exist, they are the exception.  

I will say that so many of our TV shows involve the criminal justice system.  You have the extremely popular shows like Hill Street Blues to the Law and Order franchise ( I could name a lot more), and then you have some really outstanding shows like The Wire, which is superb, and IMO a top five show of all time.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2022, 02:35 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I absolutely don't understand why people love the police so much. I don't.

I never needed them during all my life. They just annoy people at will.

That's one of the major differences between Europe and US.

We don't love our police that much and clearly don't idolize them.

Eh, there is a subset of citizens who love them and "back the blue".  Those are the ones who are most surprised about how they are treated when they have to deal with the police usually.

A lot of other people fear them.  Not in the "oh, I'm going to get shot" way but in the way of feeling like you might be doing something wrong if you see an officer near by.  Like checking your speed even if you know you aren't speeding.

Then you have the groups who feel they are at risk in any dealing with the police.  That's why we have the protests, marches and federal investigations into particular areas.

Like any occupation you have the good and the bad.  Obviously the bad get the focus because when you entrust a group of people with protecting you and give them the power to take away your property, freedom and life you want the best of the best and you want them to be unbiased and fair with all people.  When that doesn't happen you hope the courts can correct it.

This particular incident, which was updated just yesterday, shows that even when it would seem "obvious" to the casual observer that the police over-stepped their bounds that "legally" they did "nothing wrong".  Which leads to more marches, protests, questions, etc.  Which leads to more police feeling they are being "attacked" for "doing their jobs".  Vicious cycle.