Criminal gets murder charge for cop shooting bystander?

[Red Syns]

Joreth didn't miss anything, I only respond to troll posts once before recognizing them for what they are. I just deal with too many idiots on Facebook (well...I do for a limited time, before I purge my friend list of anyone who I can't stand to talk to) who are all posting about police this and police that.

Honestly, how many policemen are there in the US? How many incidents are they involved with annually? How many of those incidents escalate? How many of them turn out to have the cops not be in the wrong, but the media portray the "victim" as being some innocent angel when they are, in fact, not?

I'm not saying that the incidents shouldn't be investigated, and thoroughly. I'm not saying that wrong-doers should be glossed over. But just as civilians should be innocent until proven guilty, so should the police, and jumping immediately to "HE'S WRONG, SO WRONG, HANG THE RACIST" like so many people do when they don't even know the facts gets old.

[Frobozz]

Red, Im a former felony level prosecutor. I can say with authority that there are many, many, many bad police officers out there. In the overwhelming majority of cases that I prosecuted where force was reported (so often not reported) the police used force in excess of what was even remotely reasonable. Eventually, I was promoted into a unit that prosecuted police officers. We were never short of work.

[Kailen]

Two things:

First - You just got trolled by Vyrn. Telling him to go jump in the river ain't how you slow him down. I kind of hate having to point this out because I know the ensuing argument would have been fucking hilarious to watch. Joreth is going to be pissed at me for ruining it.

.

Actually, this wasn't an attempt to Troll.

The militarization of local police departments tools of war is an insane problem right now.

Second, I have two family members, and a best friend who are LE. The problem that they're facing are the returning vets that possess low education (H.S Diplomas) and psychological trauma filling LE jobs. These said folks are treating tax paying citizens like war time combatants.

Third, there aren't enough good cops standing up to the shit bags, simply because the need to depend on them during a shootout, or any other sticky situation.


Anyhow, I'll continue to let many of you(Gromgor) make hefty ASSumptions about what I mean, or didn't mean by my statements.


Also, Thank you Joreth for keeping it 100% many people can't imagine the idea that there are bad cops out there.

[Rosuav]

Red, Im a former felony level prosecutor. I can say with authority that there are many, many, many bad police officers out there. In the overwhelming majority of cases that I prosecuted where force was reported (so often not reported) the police used force in excess of what was even remotely reasonable. Eventually, I was promoted into a unit that prosecuted police officers. We were never short of work.

But "never short of work" doesn't say anything about the number of good police officers there are. How many cops are there in the US, and how many have come to your attention? Yes, there are criminals in the police force. Do we treat police officers as vermin because of that? What if you found that there were large numbers of petty thieves among supermarket cashiers? Do you treat them every single one of them as guilty until proven innocent? Certainly not. Why should the police be any different?

Now, I do see your argument about *covering for* the bad cops. But just because Fred saw Joe use excessive force doesn't mean that Fred, when he uses force, was going beyond the acceptable limits. Fred's actions should be evaluated separately from everyone else's, and on the usual principles of criminal trials. Is that too much to ask?

[Frobozz]

But "never short of work" doesn't say anything about the number of good police officers there are. How many cops are there in the US, and how many have come to your attention? Yes, there are criminals in the police force. Do we treat police officers as vermin because of that? What if you found that there were large numbers of petty thieves among supermarket cashiers? Do you treat them every single one of them as guilty until proven innocent? Certainly not. Why should the police be any different?

Now, I do see your argument about *covering for* the bad cops. But just because Fred saw Joe use excessive force doesn't mean that Fred, when he uses force, was going beyond the acceptable limits. Fred's actions should be evaluated separately from everyone else's, and on the usual principles of criminal trials. Is that too much to ask?

When Fred, the police officer, sees Joe use excessive force and does nothing about it then Fred becomes just as much a criminal as Joe. Fred has a legal obligation to prevent such abuses, and because of the power of the police unions this almost never happens.

One thing I remember from doing a ride along with a Vice unit about to do a drug bust was "see those black guys over there? I bet they have drugs." Me: "Why" Cops: "All black guys in this area have drugs. And this is a 'high drug area' so we're covered." The cops went on to approach this group, and when one ran he was promptly dragged to the ground and arrested. All were charged with drug trafficking. One of the guys standing in the group had less than a gram of weed on him. Everyone had their wallets emptied, and their money described as a criminal tool subject to forfieture.

This type of behavior happens ... all ... the ... time. The "good" cops are far and in between, the vast majority of cops are either outright horrible or they just turn the other eye. But since the aftermath of the Vietnam war we've become a society that idolizes and worships military and police as if they are infallible. The real irony is that the police force, in general, in this country has a rich and vast tradition of being outrageously corrupt, violent, and willing to do anything they want at any time... you can go back to Boss Joe, through the gangsters of the prohibition era, through Jim Crow, the Kent State riots, to modern America.

People seem to ignore the obvious truth because they are afraid if they criticize cops that they're going to be labeled a hater or a troll...

[Rosuav]

When Fred, the police officer, sees Joe use excessive force and does nothing about it then Fred becomes just as much a criminal as Joe. Fred has a legal obligation to prevent such abuses, and because of the power of the police unions this almost never happens.

Sure, he's guilty; but it doesn't therefore imply that Fred's own use of force should be automatically assumed to be excessive. That's what I take issue with. Fred's accusations should be treated the same way as any other: burden of proof, innocent till proven guilty, etc. Otherwise, it's just creating the reverse of the same problem - police can't use any force for fear of it being called excessive.

[Kailen]

Sure, he's guilty; but it doesn't therefore imply that Fred's own use of force should be automatically assumed to be excessive. That's what I take issue with. Fred's accusations should be treated the same way as any other: burden of proof, innocent till proven guilty, etc. Otherwise, it's just creating the reverse of the same problem - police can't use any force for fear of it being called excessive.

But Rosuav, you don't take issue with this same idea not being applied to the citizenship in which the police enforce?

GTFOH, that ideology is flawed, and more importantly I can show you families that have been preyed upon for nothing more than being within the wrong class, and sometimes simply driving while brown.

I've personally have been part of a lawsuit, and won against a bunch of bad cops, and If I thought I could convince you otherwise. I'd spend time to illustrate how the prison industrial complex is alive, and real in America, but I digress.

[Gromgor]

police can't use any force for fear of it being called excessive.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario, at all.

Police should ALWAYS fear that their use of force is going to be called into question, with penalties attached.

Why? Because if -I- use force, I guarantee you it will be called into question and there will be penalties attached, and yet I'm expected to get on with my day. I'd be absolutely willing to believe that 80%+ of all uses of force could have been avoided had the cop thought it might be prudent to find a better way to handle the situation.

I'll put it like this, I worked in a close custody (what Federal prisons refer to as Maximum Security) prison. I had no gun (except during transport). I did have a baton and a radio, pepper spray and hand cuffs. Every single night I walked into the middle of 144 murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, wife beaters, etc. In all of my time working inside of that situation, I was directly involved in -1- use of force. Every single night it was me vs. 144. They were better armed and half of them were on the worst kinds of drugs.

Cop show up to the scene. One guy is arguing with his wife. He's been drinking. Cop calls in for backup, 7 other cops show up with guns, tazers, batons, flashlights, cuffs. 8 cops approach a single guy, yelling at him, shining a light directly in his eyes. They're telling him to get down on the ground, in spite of him not actually having broken any laws...yet. They grab him, he jerks away. Hilarity ensues, cue Benny Hill chase music. Now the guy has a fractured cheek bone. Cracked rib. His eye is swollen shut. He's being charged with resisting arrest (in spite of no crime having been committed prior to his being "detained"). The crime occurred during the arrest when the guy, being shoved around, gets slammed into one of the other cops, who is now charging him with assaulting a police officer. The cop that slammed him against the cruiser is charging him with destruction of property because the front quarter panel is dented. As the guy is screaming, because his chest is pressed against the scalding hot hood of the cruiser (because the cops been patrolling for 6 hours) he, in his pain, tells one of the officers he's going to fucking kill him. Now he has a charge of communicating threat.

Think this scenario doesn't happen? Cops are the most ego-driven people I have ever met. People talk about "You don't know what it's like to do their job. They have a dangerous job." Yes, they do. Half of it is self-created. The other half of the danger in their job is legitimate. So what kind of personality would actively seek to hold that kind of job? The kind that gets a thrill from the violence. The kind that wants to exert their will over others, and found a path to doing so.

An individual cop might be a nice guy. He might try to do good things. He might have the best intentions.

Collectively they are the most abusive group in this country and they are continuously given more and more and more authority and leniency and protections. The problem with arguments FOR cops is that to make those arguments you have to demonize criminals. You have to forget they are human beings and that they STILL have rights. It's easy to think of cops as white knights riding off to slay yon evil-doer. But that ain't the reality. The reality is that they are the Sheriff of Nottingham. They are abusive tyrants who stretch every single liberty their station permits to facilitate their desire to crush faces.

So what does this translate into? Cops fire 9 rounds at a guy, killing an innocent bystander....and charge the guy with the crime.

[Frobozz]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario, at all.

Police should ALWAYS fear that their use of force is going to be called into question, with penalties attached.

Why? Because if -I- use force, I guarantee you it will be called into question and there will be penalties attached, and yet I'm expected to get on with my day. I'd be absolutely willing to believe that 80%+ of all uses of force could have been avoided had the cop thought it might be prudent to find a better way to handle the situation.

This is why there is a major push by the Defense Bar to require personal video cameras on every police officer that comes into contact with the public: VICE, NARC, Patrol, Detective, etc.

It is well documented in the major test cities that once the cameras were worn by 100% of the force that use of force complaints dropped between 65% and 85% depending on the city. A use of force complaint can only be made when force has been used against an individual, so it isnt that people stopped complaining because of the cameras it is that the cops stopped beating people. That's telling, that a cop will not use the same force on camera that he would when no one "credible" is looking.

[Frobozz]

Sure, he's guilty; but it doesn't therefore imply that Fred's own use of force should be automatically assumed to be excessive. That's what I take issue with. Fred's accusations should be treated the same way as any other: burden of proof, innocent till proven guilty, etc. Otherwise, it's just creating the reverse of the same problem - police can't use any force for fear of it being called excessive.

This mentality is part of the problem - even the police would laugh at it. Im not looking to laugh at it, Im looking to educate it.

If I saw my wife being attacked by a masked man, he was stabbing/violating her in the most horrific ways, and I beat him into the ground while a buddy of mine looked on guess what's going to happen.

(1) I am going to be charged with some form of assault/attempted murder. Sure, I was clearly defending my wife but Im going to get charged and need to spend thousands of dollars to get the case tossed. If Im black... wooooah boy, get ready for a ride.

(2) My buddy might be charged with accomplice liability, even though he has no legal duty to stop me or help me. He can in fact sit there and watch.

I bring up number 2 because unlike the cop in your example my buddy has no legal duty. If Cop A sees Cop B committing a crime not only is Cop A arguably guilty of the same crime, but they are guilty of various forms of dereliction. It is rampant. I defended a detective who got caught, up as part of a national sting by the DEA/FBI, stealing money from criminals - because the public could care less. What these detectives do on drug cases is take a huge portion of the money involved in the case - ie: if the guy gets stopped with 75k in cash on him, the cops are going to take 70 to 72k of it because having money in a drug crime doesnt enhance the penalties. But I could give several more examples if you want