Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(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.