The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah the problem is we start off at "Okay we accept that shooting a person and shooting a person you mistook for a deer are morally distinct acts and the law should reflect this" and about a week later we're stuck at "Okay but how do we define the exact amount of brown body hair per square foot of skin a person has to have in order to mistaken for a deer if the overall light levels in the forest are X..."

As with almost everything I no longer trust the nuance being introduced here, not because I don't recognize it as a valid concept, but because I no longer trust the "We must leave no hair unsplit" fetishist to not turn it into a self destructive horrible version of its own validity.

And, I'm sorry I know people will disagree with me here but "I forgot which apartment is mine" and "I forgot what type of weapon was in my hand" is past that point. Well past it.
Click to expand...

I recall some years ago an instance of that in which a hunter in Maine was excused for "target misidentification" when he shot a woman hanging her clothes on the line wearing white mittens. The fact that he should not have been anywhere near her back yard in the first place did not, apparently, mitigate the honest mistake of shooting the first white patch he saw. Even many hunters were dismayed at this one. In another recent incident a hunter killed a woman he mistook for a deer. This time he pled guilty to manslaughter, and at least admitted he'd made a mistake, but served very little time.
 
pgwenthold said:
Wasn't she found guilty by a jury?

How can anyone claim that there is "insufficient evidence to convict her of murder" when there was a trial where evidence was presented and the jury found her guilty?

She was convicted by a jury of her peers. That is the only evidence we need to determine that there was sufficient evidence to convict her.
Click to expand...


It's possible to file a motion to set aside a guilty verdict if it's believed that the jury's decision was contrary to or was not supported by the evidence. The defense argues that the jury made an incorrect decision based on the evidence and has to convince a judge that this is the case.
 
dudalb said:
I think we are dealing with another "Internet Revolutionary" here. i thinks he wants some kind of mass violence in the streets because that will create the proper "Revolutionary Crisis" and we can have the glorious People's Revolution...
Click to expand...

Dude you're the one who's "America is going to have a Civil War any day now" every other post.

Both you and SuburbanTurkey have way to much emotionally invested in things finally collapsing and nothing ever getting better.
 
bruto said:
I recall some years ago an instance of that in which a hunter in Maine was excused for "target misidentification" when he shot a woman hanging her clothes on the line wearing white mittens. The fact that he should not have been anywhere near her back yard in the first place did not, apparently, mitigate the honest mistake of shooting the first white patch he saw. Even many hunters were dismayed at this one. In another recent incident a hunter killed a woman he mistook for a deer. This time he pled guilty to manslaughter, and at least admitted he'd made a mistake, but served very little time.
Click to expand...

This post cries out for this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyu7dstANgo
 
pgwenthold said:
JoeMorgue said:
And my point is "She intended to user her Taser but was so stupid she grabbed her gun" and "She intended to use her gun" are the exact same thing on every practical, moral, and externally provable way, so they should be the same legally.
Click to expand...

I think they are very different on a moral level, and I think in this case even on an externally provable way.

On a practical level, though, I agree.

There is a reason that manslaughter and murder are two different crimes. If you think you are shooting at a deer, and you actually shoot a human, most people would judge that that is a lesser crime than deliberately killing a human.
Click to expand...

As noted intent or mens rea is a critical legal aspect of criminal culpability. However, neglect can serve as a substitute for mens rea particularly when one has a particular 'duty to perform'. While in the case of the hunter there is an implied duty to not shoot people, in the case of LEO there is a specific duty to protect the public and even render aid to those in custody. As has been testified to in the George Floyd trial. So it can be argued the the officer in this case had a 'duty to perform' both in the drawing of the weapon and the protection of the person being arrested/subdued. Failing that/those specific duties can supplant intent and result in criminal negligence.
 
dudalb said:
Apparently the warrant was for a misdemeanor not evne a felony.
But I think your point is mistaken. They could have arrested him on the spot except it was handled very incompetanly. THey should have moved him AWAY from the car door after they had him get out of the car. That is SOP in this situation so the person cannot jump back into the seat.
I think the guy's resisitng the cops was stupid, but that does not justify them shooting him.
Click to expand...

It's strange. What I saw in the body cam was a guy who was basically cooperating. Then, the female officer moved in and stuck her hands in his pocket and pulled something out. It looks like paper to me. Then, he jumped in the car.

I don't know why the officer didn't just leave him be, to be handcuffed by the other cop. I don't know why the officer stuck her hands in his pocket before the first officer had finished cuffing him. I don't know why he freaked out when she did.

I suppose that's all things for the investigation to sort through, and the most likely conclusion is that none of it is really relevant, but it just seems odd.

(ETA: I also only watched the tape once, and was focused on the shooting, so it may be that it might be painfully obvious what was going on with the hands in pockets thing. It just seemed odd to me.)
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It's strange. What I saw in the body cam was a guy who was basically cooperating. Then, the female officer moved in and stuck her hands in his pocket and pulled something out. It looks like paper to me. Then, he jumped in the car.

I don't know why the officer didn't just leave him be, to be handcuffed by the other cop. I don't know why the officer stuck her hands in his pocket before the first officer had finished cuffing him. I don't know why he freaked out when she did.

I suppose that's all things for the investigation to sort through, and the most likely conclusion is that none of it is really relevant, but it just seems odd.

(ETA: I also only watched the tape once, and was focused on the shooting, so it may be that it might be painfully obvious what was going on with the hands in pockets thing. It just seemed odd to me.)
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s irrelevant for the purpose of analyzing procedure changes. Although nobody would actually want to admit it because they can sit back and armchair QB the exact right move they would have made, being confronted by police who are going to arrest you is scary. People who are scared act irrationally. I think the police, the ones with the resources and training, need to come up with some ways to get people to do what they want that’s not increasingly escalating violence.

Really though it’s the kind of systemic change that people have been shouting for all year that everyone agreed needs to happen, but then never happened.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Dude you're the one who's "America is going to have a Civil War any day now" every other post.

Both you and SuburbanTurkey have way to much emotionally invested in things finally collapsing and nothing ever getting better.
Click to expand...

I would like to think I am wrong, but in every case where a country is as divided as the US Now is, it has almost never ended peacefully.
 
Surprise, the right wing media is trying to defame the victim of Sunday's police shooting .
That even if he was a criminal that did not give the cops the right to execute him seems to either pass them buy or they secretly approve of executing men of color in this situation to "teach them a lesson and keep them in their place".
I have not had the stomach to watch Fox News, but I have read they are showing footage of the riots, 24/7 ,but not talking about what led to the riots.
Fox News is now delibertly peddling racism for profits and they are not even trying to hide it.
God, I hate Rupert Murdoch.
 
dudalb said:
Pretty clear you think that the police should allow the rioters to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

You don't think it's a problem that the police are explicitly breaking the ordinances passed by civilian government?

The city is well aware of the problems of rioting and still decided to pass a law banning the police use of tear gas and other less lethal weapons, which the police promptly ignored.
 
dudalb said:
I would like to think I am wrong, but in every case where a country is as divided as the US Now is, it has almost never ended peacefully.
Click to expand...
Re the assertion we'll be in a civil war any day now, we're so divided, yada yada...: Just who is going to rise up?

You saw that rag-tag bunch of idiots and a few armchair soldiers (not mutually exclusive) attack the Capitol in a frenzy, right? A couple of them had made some kind of planning effort, right? And there was an assertion similar groups were all about to attack the state capitals, right?

Is that what you think will evolve into a civil war?

When you base your conclusions on what you see in the mainstream news, you might want to do a better job of assessing the applicability of that to the whole.

There may very well be a number of lone wolf attacks here and there. And there was that group of idiots that planned to kidnap a governor. They probably watched too many movies.

There is no civil war brewing here.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
You don't think it's a problem that the police are explicitly breaking the ordinances passed by civilian government?

The city is well aware of the problems of rioting and still decided to pass a law banning the police use of tear gas and other less lethal weapons, which the police promptly ignored.
Click to expand...

They had a similar problem here in the NW. I think it's going to be a while before we get this police reform right. I expect it to be a very slow process.
 
dirtywick said:
I don’t think it’s irrelevant for the purpose of analyzing procedure changes. Although nobody would actually want to admit it because they can sit back and armchair QB the exact right move they would have made, being confronted by police who are going to arrest you is scary. People who are scared act irrationally. I think the police, the ones with the resources and training, need to come up with some ways to get people to do what they want that’s not increasingly escalating violence.

Really though it’s the kind of systemic change that people have been shouting for all year that everyone agreed needs to happen, but then never happened.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. The sudden motion and sticking a hand in his pockets just seemed like a very bad idea. I don't know how it would have gone if she had just stood back and let things proceed, but it couldn't have been a whole lot worse.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Apparently it's his own fault because he didn't comply with the instructions to keep his hands outside the window and at the same time take his belt off and open the door.
Click to expand...
Really what the USA needs is more cases of people defending themselves with lethal force against police assaults.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's possible to file a motion to set aside a guilty verdict if it's believed that the jury's decision was contrary to or was not supported by the evidence. The defense argues that the jury made an incorrect decision based on the evidence and has to convince a judge that this is the case.
Click to expand...

Indeed - and in fact, a motion from the defense is not even necessary; in the US a judge has the power to unilaterally decide that a jury's guilty verdict is inappropriate or unjustified by the evidence and overturn it immediately. Judges cannot overturn not-guilty verdicts in this way though; and unlike a not-guilty verdict rendered directly by a jury, prosecutors can appeal this kind of judgment.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Peaceful protests could unite law abiding citizens of all colors against corrupt police. But violent riots will only lead to black vs. white I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the individuals here who seem to be cheering on the violent protests..and they are not hard to find.....are being incredibly short sighted.
Or they seem to want massive violence (which I think is a real possibility but one I am not happy about) since that will create a "revolutionary Situation".
That these riots just play into the hands of the right seems either to right past them or they just don't care, we will fix things after the glorious people's revolution.
 
A lot of law enforcement commentators are saying that the pull over on SUnday was just plain bad procedure. You always move the suspect away from the open car door and jto the front of the car after you ask him to get out of the car just so he can't jump back in. That is police procedure 101. Looks as if the police here just got plain old sloppy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom