I've already ranted once this week about the police so I'll try to be brief here. My observations:
1) The shocking contrast in behaviors. The officer, a "trained" professional loses all composure - you clearly hear him freaking out. The girlfriend despite the circumstances remains for the most part calm, cool-headed and polite.
2) You have a young child that will likely be traumatized as a result of this event. Not to mention could have been shot by one of the bullets passing through the victim.
3) The failure to provide medical aid by the officer as well as preventing the girlfriend from trying to help the victim.
4) The blatant failure in police training especially when you consider this happened in a state that allows concealed carry.
5) This doesn't look like a bad cop. Just a cop who panicked and made a several bad decisions.
The sad irony is that the victim was apparently doing exactly what the officer instructed - producing his ID. And the victim did the right thing in announcing he was armed (which as I understand is either mandated by law or what you're instructed to do from the very beginning when stopped by a police officer in order to avoid a bad outcome).
So you're damned if you do - reach for ID, action interpreted as going for your gun. Or damned if you don't - refuse to comply to a lawful order for fear of said action being interpreted as reaching for your gun (now you've potentially pissed off the cop and the situation is escalated).
It's precisely this reason why the onus must be on the police officer. They are supposed to be trained professionals who know the law and ultimately control how any given situation develops. This incident could have been easily avoided.
Biv - I never got back to you on all the issues you brought up in the last thread. Frankly, when I considered the volume of typing I needed to do in order to adequately respond, I gave up before starting.
As for the MN shooting, even if this was a completely justified use of force, I agree totally with your 1st and 3rd points. There's really nothing else to add to your comment.
Based on the information so far, I am leaning toward agreeing with your 5th point as well. I highly doubt the officer woke up in the morning and decided to assassinate a citizen. It will be a question of the totality of circumstances that led the officer to pulling the trigger. I hope there was either a dashcam or a bodycam recording showing the entirety of the incident. Let the chips fall as they may based on the investigation.
As an aside, that MN governor likes to pour gasoline on the fire. His comment about racism was totally inappropriate. It seemed like pandering of the worst sort.
Gotta be rough being a cop in a country where a majority of the citizens demand the rights to have and carry firearms all the time just in case they need to have an armed revolution against those in authority. You know. Like cops.
As part of the fears against terror (which is legit), we live in a police state where there's "zero" accountability against police. Even when they are caught, they investigate themselves and almost always find nothing wrong. There needs to be accountability and oversight by a 3rd party for ANY police departments.
That 3,500 number makes it sound like some kind of black concentration camp. The article dances around the issue, but it's 3,500 people detained over the course of a decade. So in 3,650 days, 3,500 people were detained and/or questioned there. Wow, nearly one per day in a city of nearly 3 million. Stop the presses!
>>Lawyers and former police officers say that lack of access to a lawyer after the arrest and before booking – particularly during any interrogation, and particularly people from poor minority communities – puts a suspect’s rights in jeopardy.
“In Chicago, the police do not provide people with attorneys at the police station at the times they most need them: when they’re subject to interrogation,” said Craig Futterman of the University of Chicago Law School. “That’s what the Miranda warning is all about: the right to counsel while interrogated by police.”
I love how The Guardian makes it sound as if the CPD should have lawyers on staff and available for suspects. That's not going to happen, nor should it. If a suspect wants a lawyer, the suspect can request one. At that point, questioning stops. It's that simple. It's the duty of police to inform a suspect of his/her right to counsel and to respect any request that is made. But the police aren't going to just proactively assign counsel to suspects. There would be zero confessions, because no criminal defense attorney would ever let their client make a statement to police.
As a criminal defense attorney who watches videos like this for a living, she did so many dumb things. It`s terrible that she died but her interactions with the trooper could almost be used as a guide of how not to interact with law enforcement when you get stopped. That said, dragging her out of the car for not putting out a cigarette is crazy. You`re never going to win an argument with law enforcement on their playing field and challenging their authority or questioning it is a sure fire way to escalate things.
Its as simple as that. You don't want people flicking a burning ember into your face or using it on you. I find it hard to believe that people are getting upset about putting the cigarette out. As for the rest of the video, he took his verbal judo a bit to far. Its so much easier to be nice to people as they go off on you.
If you really want to "win" an encounter, go to court. There you have a chance. Not on a street.
Don't forget, this encounter didnt kill her. She killed herself in jail.
The focus on this traffic stop is really misplaced in my mind. It seems like something motivated by an attorney who wants to involve as many organizations with deep pockets as possible.
The same woman who made some really, really bad decisions on this traffic stop also made a bad decision to end her own life in jail (in the custody of the Sheriff's Dept, not DPS mind you). That's the only connection I see between the traffic stop and her death--her puzzling behavior. I don't understand why the Trooper is suspended. How can he be held accountable for actions that occur days later under the authority of a different agency?
Now I know the argument will be that none of this would have occurred had the Trooper let Bland go with a warning--therefore the Trooper has some liability for everything that followed.
The way I view the traffic stop, the first interaction with Bland went fine. The Trooper returned with a warning, and at that point Bland displayed some attitude and wouldn't extinguish the cigarette. Maybe the Trooper changed his mind about the warning (he hadn't delivered it yet). He certainly could have had second thoughts about cutting this woman a break based on the change in her demeanor. So he decides on the spot to instead issue a citation. Now Bland is from far out of state (Illinois), and has already shown that she is not responsive to requests from law enforcement (refusing to extinguish the cigarette). Perhaps the Trooper thought she would fail to respond to the as-of-yet undelivered citation and never pay it. In TX, a traffic violator can be arrested and taken before a magistrate for even minor traffic offenses (I'm reading between the lines, but I assume this is to curtail people from out of state failing to respond to tickets). So, the Trooper determines he is going to arrest Bland and take her before a magistrate. We all know how it goes from there.
Clearly my last paragraph is loaded with supposition and conjecture. The point is, until the investigation is complete and the Trooper explains his rationale, everyone is just guessing. Besides, the actions at the traffic stop are not really the issue.
*officer sees wallet, recognizes it's the size of george costanza's wallet*
'DROP THE WEAPON SIR! THAT IS A 2 POUND WALLET AND YOU COULD THROW IT AT ME AND CONCUSS ME DROP IT NOW BEFORE I LIGHT YOU UP WITH THIS TASER!"
here's the thing about justifying the cops actions because the person has a bad attitude. say you work as a receptionist at a doctors office, and the office says no cell phones. theres someone on their cell phone and you ask them to hang up and they say no. do you then get to drag them around? no? why not? because thats against the law? gtfo really?
this cop isn't suspended because this lady killed herself, he's suspended because he did the thing you're not supposed to do as a cop, get filmed while breaking the law.
you know with her attitude and the way she is behaving she continued with that in jail and this guy or some other cops there killed her. Just beat the snot out of her then claimed she commited suicide. who believes that?
This is one of those that I can't get behind law enforcement on.
That cop let his pride get the better of him and he clearly abused his power just because someone was irritated for being pulled over.
We have a right to be irritated for being pulled over and as long as you are not hindering the officer or verbally abusive to him who gives a shit. The "Could you put out your cigarette" request by this pig was a clear setup so that he could arrest her for having an attitude. Cops need to remember they are *servants* of the public, not the rulers of it.
There are far worse cops than this guy but he is a clear example of the type of people who should not be cops. You're going to deal with irate emotional people every day and letting someone get under your skin so easily is a sign that you have no business in that position.
How about you let me burn you with a cigarette and then we can have a discussion on whether its a weapon or not. Maybe even in your eyes. Now, I'm not saying that it was a perfect traffic stop, but in police work, perfection is extremely hard to obtain. Anyways, he isn't responsible for her taking her own life.
you sitting in a car, me standing outside of the car, you attempting to get the lit end of a cigarette in my eye.
i agree that would hurt and really fuck me up, but i also think that i could back out of the way while you flail an arm out a window at me, or if you flick the cigarette at me, well to get it in the eye you'd have to be the robin hood of cigarette flicking
the cop didn't ask her to put it out because it was a possible dangerous weapon you clown, he did it probably because he doesn't like the smell or want the smoke blown in his face cause thats understandably annoying as shit. but it's not illegal and again, cops don't get to make the rules as they go.
cops don't have to be perfect, they make mistakes all the time, like spelling someones name wrong on a ticket.
there's a difference between a mistake and abusing your power
And contrary to popular belief, being a police officer isn't as dangerous as some would have you believe. It doesn't even crack the top ten (most recent stats I could find place them at #14 - LINK). And if you look at officer deaths by year, with the exception of 2001 (should be obvious why) the number has never exceeded 200 in the last 20 years. In fact, it looks like we're trending towards double digits (LINK). Meanwhile, according to the FBI violent crime has been trending downward over the last few years (LINK & LINK)
And yet, despite the relatively low number of officer deaths, the drop in violent crime, the militarization of the police in no small part due to the 1033 program has resulted in more and more unnecessary civilian casualties and deaths. Just one example - LINK
A lot of you are saying you're sick of hearing all these anti-police stories. You shrug it off and say "it's just a few bad apples". This isn't about being anti-police. It's about bringing awareness to systemic rise in police aggression. Bad policies and bad tactics are causing way too many civilian deaths. Poor training and the hiring of personnel who clearly shouldn't be carrying firearms under the color of authority. And when an innocent person is killed, too often the officer responsible is given a slap on the wrist (if even that).
As to what should be done, that's a different post all-together. But we first have to agree that there *is* a problem.
I should know better than to respond, but here goes. Biv, I'm disappointed in you. Most people on this board already have their minds made up about a great many things (including me), however, you are generally reasonable.
And contrary to popular belief, being a police officer isn't as dangerous as some would have you believe. It doesn't even crack the top ten (most recent stats I could find place them at #14
I see this one trotted out all the time. The difference is that police are much more likely to be the victims of felonious assault than anyone that ranks above them for fatalities. People intentionally try to harm or kill police because of who they are and because of the job they do.
And if you look at officer deaths by year, with the exception of 2001 (should be obvious why) the number has never exceeded 200 in the last 20 years.
I think we would all agree that's a good thing, but it's not really relevant to this conversation. Maybe the police are getting the bad guy before the bad guy gets the cop?
Meanwhile, according to the FBI violent crime has been trending downward over the last few years
Causation? Could be better policing. Or maybe it's UCR downgrading by the local police agencies that report stats to the FBI. Still not sure how this ties in with where you're going.
And yet, despite the relatively low number of officer deaths, the drop in violent crime, the militarization of the police in no small part due to the 1033 program has resulted in more and more unnecessary civilian casualties and deaths
Here it is. The unsupported hypothesis. Or maybe the same smattering of facts that supported your hypothesis could be twisted and support the following: With better equipment and more aggressive policing, violent crime has been reduced and fewer police officers are being killed.
But we first have to agree that there *is* a problem.
I would agree that we're not on the same page.
As for the original article that was posted. I only had to hover over the web address to know that it was propaganda garbage. Against my better judgment, I clicked the link and confirmed the same.
The irony is that the same people who will talk about the relatively low number of total fatalities in mass shootings will turn right around and cry about gun control in the wake of mass shootings.
i fucking hate baltimore. moved here 3 years ago for school. counting down the days until I get to leave. luckily most of the stuff going down is in the already ghetto parts of town but there was some looting of a liquor store just a few blocks from me. the hospital i work at had national guard protecting it all day
Hearing that the local police have been relieved of duty, the State County Police being shooed the hell away and probably going to be receiving some discipline, then the new head guy (from the State PD) marching with fellow protestors ... well, it just was nice to see that some public servants know how to work with the people.
There's still a lot more that needs to happen, but it has some momentum now. People got pissed, and hopefully that anger won't go away too quickly. Instead I'd like to see it transferred to some legislation to help increase accountability of Law Enforcement.
To spend all that money, get so much equipment and still fight against personal cameras is just too much. Too many truly think of civilians as second-class citizens once that uniform goes on.
At this point, I blame the media for fanning the flames of this incident. I've done my best to ignore the Ferguson news, but it's everywhere. I think it has become a self perpetuating news cycle (until something more interesting happens elsewhere). It's like the news media is in full blown cheerleading mode hoping that things continue to escalate.
I just don't know how this thing gets resolved. People have the right to assemble. People have the right to be pissed off about how Brown was killed. People have the right to be suspicious of how the news media was treated by local law enforcement in Ferguson. However, the violence on Friday night (shootings/Molotov cocktails at police) and continued property crimes against the citizens of Ferguson (looting, etc) can't be ignored by law enforcement.
What do you do when the presence of law enforcement is inciting certain agitators to act up, and at the same time these acts require the presence of law enforcement to investigate and protect the public interest? Law enforcement can't abandon the town. The troopers can't just strip down a minimal level of protective gear when items are being thrown and people are getting shot.
The governor hoped to diffuse the situation by removing the local police and sending in a different set of uniforms (the State Police). The State Police Captain did his best to reach out to the public and send the message that peaceful assembly would not be infringed upon. But the situation continues to deteriorate, and now the National Guard is involved. I'm not sure how it works at the state level, but I'm speculating the governor will have to declare some form of emergency and expand the curfew. This really sucks for the people who live and work in that town and who could give a fuck less about the protests. Law and order needs to be maintained, and some liberties may be curtailed in order to clamp down on a handful of provocateurs. All the while though, you can bet the news media will be chirping and talking heads will be yakking away about the police state.
Amid a controversy over the death of a Staten Island man following a confrontation with the NYPD, Mayor de Blasio on Friday abruptly postponed his departure for a family vacation in Italy, hours before he was scheduled to depart.