04-19-2021, 11:44 AM
(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.
