Bad Boys II - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Bad Boys II (/Thread-Bad-Boys-II) |
RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 05-16-2019 (05-15-2019, 05:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is something I think a lot of people don't realize with regards to "shooting to kill." The policy isn't "shoot to kill," it is "aim center mass." The reason isn't to kill someone, though that is often the only guaranteed way to end the threat, but it's because it reduces the chances of a miss. If you kill a person presenting a threat, even if there are these questions about how much of a threat they were, it is better than missing and hitting a bystander or not ending the threat and the person harming the officer or a bystander. Yet you won't be accused of hating the police. As it should be. Wanting to make policing BETTER isn't ANTI police. And this case aside we should "second guess" every shooting by officers. If "second guess" means looking into the entire incident to make sure there was nothing "funny" going on. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 05-16-2019 (05-15-2019, 04:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: There is a difference between surrounding an unarmed man with a gang of officers and beating him and what we have here. Part of the issue is in trying to prove misconduct here people are continuing throughout this thread to project true past injustices into this situation. In no other example people have tried to use in this conversation when they talk about "second guessing cops" and "objectively reasonableness" have they used a comparable situation where an officer escalated force gradually until the suspect obtained a weapon and forced the officer into using deadly force. People keep wanting to use cases where officers beat unarmed people as a reason why this case must be another police screw up. We are working with different narratives here, and you are inserting my examples and statements into yours, assuming that I am looking for "misconduct" which violates the law. But my focus throughout has been upon the law itself and what it allows. You want to limit examples to gradually escalated force. But if a gang of officers can get away with beating a helpless man under the "objective reasonableness" standard, then there is something wrong with the standard. "Second guessing" was not allowed in the King case as the jury was instructed to look at how King's defensive moves, motivated by fear and confusion, "could" be interpreted by the police--the "adequately trained experts"--as non-compliance. The analogy between cases here is focused on the OR standard; it is not an attempt to "project past injustices" or some such. (05-15-2019, 04:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: Your "argument" was that a police officer "Should" be able to do all these things in a moments notice when faced with danger (see comments about "Let's a girl take is taser"). You have essentially defined what an officer should be able to do in dangerous situations without having any actual qualifications to do so. Courts have agreed (Graham vs Connor) that it is not up to arm chair police officers to determine what the capabilities of people in high stress situations should and shouldn't be capable of. It is based on standards developed by people who have experience in those situations and what could reasonably be expected by someone who is adequately trained for that position in that situation. My argument is that lawyers, juries, voters, and legislators are going to be mostly "arm chair police officers." And "second guessing" police authority is in part what separates law and the role of police in liberal democracies from the same under authoritarian government. My argument is, further, that over the last three decades, the concept of "qualified immunity" for public officials needs to be closely re-examined--not just for police officers. (05-15-2019, 04:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: For the third time now....Yes! Police have a history of brutality and violence, especially against people of color. This is not however one of those situations. This is a case where little force was used to start and rather than going immediately to deadly force the officer used less than deadly force. The situation was then escalated by the actions of the suspect to a deadly force situation and the officer was forced to use deadly force.I heard you the first time. I have not been trying to insert this case into a "history of brutality . . . against people of color." I don't agree that officer was "forced" to use deadly force on woman sitting on the ground, even if she is holding a taser. I am very concerned about how such incidents can be legally framed under current law, which make it very hard to discern whether an "adequately trained expert" panicked or not, or even whether he was adequately trained. I am sure we agree that policing is necessary and that it tasks ordinary people with the very difficult job of dealing with nasty, out of control people who are a danger to others, often in cases where split-second judgment is necessary. I am sure we also agree that we don't want laws that force police to assume to much personal risk while dealing with those people. That said, there still needs to be a balance between the rights of police and citizens which does not unnecessarily increase the likelihood of misdemeanor arrests resulting in death. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 05-16-2019 (05-15-2019, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't speak to department policy for every law enforcement agency. I can tell you that any policy to allows for shoot to wound is a bad policy for reasons I have covered ad naseum. Also, you're making an immense assumption in the KTLA link that the leg is what the officers were aiming at. Lastly, I find it curious you would use the second example as the DA's office actually charged the officer in the incident. I'd be willing to bet he was also out of policy by aiming at an extremity instead of center mass. First about the leg. No, I don't assume the officers were only shooting for the leg. But they apparently stopped once the guy was down. He didn't go down under a hail of bullets. I use the second example precisely because of its legal "variety." In this case, not shooting for body mass is why the woman is still alive. The officer is charged because he jumped a step or two and went to deadly force. He was "out of policy" for that reason. Had she a gun instead of a screwdriver, things might have been different. But we still see reports of police who handle similar situations--e.g. someone brandishing a weapon--very differently; in some cases, the subject goes down in a hail of gunfire, in others there is a stand off until the subject is talked down or surrenders. RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: First about the leg. No, I don't assume the officers were only shooting for the leg. But they apparently stopped once the guy was down. He didn't go down under a hail of bullets. You don't know how many times they discharged their weapon. Again, you don't have the information needed to use this an an example of "shooting to wound". Quote:I use the second example precisely because of its legal "variety." In this case, not shooting for body mass is why the woman is still alive. The officer is charged because he jumped a step or two and went to deadly force. He was "out of policy" for that reason. Had she a gun instead of a screwdriver, things might have been different. But we still see reports of police who handle similar situations--e.g. someone brandishing a weapon--very differently; in some cases, the subject goes down in a hail of gunfire, in others there is a stand off until the subject is talked down or surrenders. You're basically stating that every scenario is unique, which is true. Also again, you don't know how this officer violated policy, he may have been out of policy by shooting at her legs as well as shooting at her at all. You don't know, so also again, you're using it as an example of "shooting to wound" is not very compelling. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't know how many times they discharged their weapon. Again, you don't have the information needed to use this an an example of "shooting to wound". 1. I agree that I should not have presented my example as one of intentional "shoot to wound." We cannot tell that from the report, as you correctly state. However, my example is definitely one of someone who did not die in a hail of bullets. It looks very much like police stopped shooting when the suspect was down. Getting a number on the shots fired doesn't change that part, at least. This was supposed to be an example of good police judgment. 2. Putting five shots in a woman sitting on the ground is not an example of "shooting to wound." Given what I saw on the video, I'm not convinced shooting was necessary at all--even if she had the cop's taser. You are saying it is possible the officer could be punished for violating policy if he purposefully shot the woman in the leg rather than going for body mass in this case--effectively killing her to keep "in policy"? 3. However policy varies, the law in this case does not. When assessing the officer's behavior, the fact this was to be a misdemeanor bust will play a role in assessing level of force. Along with an assessment of danger posed to others and the officer. A taser, normally not considered a lethal weapon, may be construed as one if a suspect takes it from an officer? It will have to be in this case, to make the officer's actions legal. RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-16-2019 (05-16-2019, 02:39 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. I agree that I should not have presented my example as one of intentional "shoot to wound." We cannot tell that from the report, as you correctly state. However, my example is definitely one of someone who did not die in a hail of bullets. It looks very much like police stopped shooting when the suspect was down. Getting a number on the shots fired doesn't change that part, at least. This was supposed to be an example of good police judgment. I'm pleased that we agree. Obviously, once the target is down you should cease firing. Quote:2. Putting five shots in a woman sitting on the ground is not an example of "shooting to wound." Given what I saw on the video, I'm not convinced shooting was necessary at all--even if she had the cop's taser. You are saying it is possible the officer could be punished for violating policy if he purposefully shot the woman in the leg rather than going for body mass in this case--effectively killing her to keep "in policy"? It's actually not that complicated. If you, as an officer, decide that using your firearm is necessary then you aim for center mass. Now, the decision to use deadly force can be the subject of debate. What cannot be the subject of debate is, once you decide to use deadly force you aim center mass so as to hit your target. As I stated earlier, I am unaware of any law enforcement agency that has a "shoot to wound" policy. In fact the exact opposite is the case in every instance I am aware of. Quote:3. However policy varies, the law in this case does not. When assessing the officer's behavior, the fact this was to be a misdemeanor bust will play a role in assessing level of force. Along with an assessment of danger posed to others and the officer. A taser, normally not considered a lethal weapon, may be construed as one if a suspect takes it from an officer? It will have to be in this case, to make the officer's actions legal. Actually, no. The reason for the arrest is completely irrelevant in this instance. The officer asserts the suspect gained control of his taser and was in the process of attempting to discharge it at him. That is the reason given for the use of deadly force. At that point the reason for initial contact is not a consideration. A taser being non-lethal is also irrelevant as its purpose is to incapacitate. If the officer is incapacitated he is entirely at the mercy of a a suspect who has already demonstrated the willingness to use physical violence against the officer. Your legal argument is a complete non-starter for that exact reason. This shooting being adjudged a correct one will rest upon the truth of the officer's assertions. If things happened as he claimed he is well within the law. The only other consideration would be if he followed policy leading up to the shooting. If he did not he would be subject to departmental, not legal, consequences. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 05-22-2019 https://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-police-officer-pulled-gun-black-man-picking/story?id=63079797 Quote:Colorado police officer who pulled gun on black man picking up trash quits force Yeah, the "suspect" was yelling. Probably because he was innocent and the police had zero reason to have questioned him at all? At least we don't have "second guess" a shooting this time because the "suspect wasn't cooperating". RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-22-2019 (05-16-2019, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yet you won't be accused of hating the police. No, you're the only person I accuse of it because the entirety of your posting history, from the old board to now positively screams it. Quote:Wanting to make policing BETTER isn't ANTI police. No, it absolutely is not. Quote:And this case aside we should "second guess" every shooting by officers. If "second guess" means looking into the entire incident to make sure there was nothing "funny" going on. Second guessing should be done with the understanding of the circumstances of the situation and the fact that, in almost every instance, a split second decision is made. "Hindsight is 20/20" is a saying for a reason. People like yourself, who fail to see basic facts like a suspect pointing a gun at an officer, are completely unhelpful in this regard. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 05-23-2019 https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/police-woman-killed-herself-with-gunshot-through-her-mouth-while-hands-cuffed-behind-back Quote:Police: Teen killed herself with gunshot through her mouth while hands cuffed behind back RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2019 Maybe a "bit" excessive?
But, to be fair, at least they lied about what happened in their report.
RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-17-2019 (06-17-2019, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe a "bit" excessive? Absolutely terrible but as with everything there are some conflicting reports. I've heard the family stole more than just the girl taking the doll. Dude in the twitter you quote states they turned off their body cams while I've heard reports they didn't have any. Of course none of that excuses the abuse of force we see here but we should all strive for the truth, RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2019 I say when the police tell you to drop your baby and put your hands up, you drop your baby and put your hands up! If there are conflicting stories then I think you have to go with the cops. Looked to me like this mother was reaching for something. And using the baby as a shield. Was the stolen merchandise recovered? RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 06-17-2019 (06-17-2019, 09:01 PM)Dill Wrote: I say when the police tell you to drop your baby and put your hands up, you drop your baby and put your hands up! I thought they asked her to put the baby down instead of drop him. But perhaps I was wrong. As I said we should all strive for the truth. RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-18-2019 (06-17-2019, 09:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought they asked her to put the baby down instead of drop him. But perhaps I was wrong. As I said we should all strive for the truth. Perhaps some of us should learn to recognize parody. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-18-2019 (06-18-2019, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps some of us should learn to recognize parody. Maybe bfine couldn't hear the request over all the threats to shoot and kill her? RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-18-2019 https://people.com/human-interest/janika-edmond-suicide-michigan-prison-guards-bet/ Quote:Family Awarded $860K After Guards Bet on Woman's Suicide in Prison: 'Somebody Owes Me Lunch!' RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 07-12-2019 So what is worse here? The officer claiming the man ("big black man") didn't comply and his complaint simply dismissed or them not even giving him a ticket once they "realized who he was"? https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/07/11/nfl-patriots-lb-elandon-roberts-says-he-harassed-police/1707037001/ Quote:New England Patriots linebacker Elandon Roberts got out of his Porsche with his hands up. RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 07-18-2019 Don't do something while black and then try to explain that it's legal...that's "resisting" and "obstructing an investigation". Also don't have an outstanding traffic ticket! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/police-arrest-artist-who-was-hired-by-city-to-paint-murals-i-dont-do-graffiti-i-sell-paintings-122655499.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw Quote:A popular Detroit artist, who city officials commissioned to create ten murals in an effort to deter illegal graffiti, was arrested by police officers because they thought he was committing an act of vandalism. The incident occurred while Sheefy McFly was painting his first, out of ten, commissioned murals. -->As the 29-year-old musician and artist tried to explain the situation, and a city official arrived to back up his claims...<--- And he still spent 24 hour in jail. Just wild. RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 07-25-2019 Chicago mayor lets everyone know what she thinks about this "Bad Boy": Quote:At one point, Lightfoot turned to corporation counsel Mark Flessner and said, “Back again. This is this FOP clown,” https://nypost.com/2019/07/25/chicago-mayor-caught-on-mic-calling-police-union-official-a-clown/ But at least she apologized.............for saying it out loud. RE: Bad Boys II - bfine32 - 07-25-2019 Seems like the good citizens of NYC are taking care of these "Bad Boys: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/nypd-water-bucket-arrest.html Quote:Outrage continued to grow on Wednesday as the police arrested three men who were seen on video hurling water over the weekend in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The officers had been sent to disperse disorderly groups at fire hydrants during a three-day heat wave, and in both incidents left without arresting the assailants, who were egged on by bystanders. At least some are wise enough to blame the Bad Boys for this: Quote:Mr. Richards, the City Council member, said Mr. Lynch’s portrayal of the incidents was a reflection of the lack of diversity in police union leadership. He said the Police Department’s efforts to build trust in neighborhoods alienated by decades of aggressive policing were helping to ease tension. Hostility remains, Mr. Richards said, because the Police Department and the union fail to respond vigorously when officers abuse civilians. |