18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police over the weekend. It turns out he was unarmed and the preliminary story of what happened is all kinds of fishy.
Based on this LA Times story, Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street to Brown's grandmother's house. A patrol car pulled up and told them to get out of the street and some kind of scuffle ensued with Brown in the car. Then, Brown got out, put his hands up and was shot repeatedly?
Try to disregard all the ridiculous looting and vandalism by the opportunistic scum.
The officer who fired the shots was a 6-year vet of the force and is on paid administrative leave.
LA Times Reporting - (
New Window )
but the looting and the mob scenes have been ridiculous...it's hard to ignore them...if that's the reaction to something like this, the same people have to wonder why the police are already on the defensive when they encounter someone...and I don't say that to be racist, it is just the truth...police these days don't know what they are dealing with when they make a traffic stop or any kind of stop...
if the officer was wrong, he should be prosecuted, no doubt...but tell me how looting a QuikTrip and other stores (tires, liquor) in your own neighborhood is going to get you justice?
/holds candle
Vastly different versions of what happened.
Except Philly. Fuck Philly. :)
My guess is we'll never know. The officer says one thing. Some eyewitnesses say another. I don't see any independent corroborating evidence for either version. That makes it a "he said" "she said" scenario. The real damage is that whatever minimal trust the community had for the police is now shattered, probably irreparably.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
Quote:
It's an expression of long term economic and social frustration.
Well, there is about to be a lot more economic and social frustration in that area as the businesses flee.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
Agreed. Social declines have momentum. And that momentum is really hard to reverse.
Quote:
It's an expression of long term economic and social frustration.
Well, there is about to be a lot more economic and social frustration in that area as the businesses flee.
See what happened in Detroit after the 1967 riots.
You're seriously comparing this to the Detroit riots?
Perhaps when pointing the finger at others, it exposes ones own significant biases in expressing any sort of nuance on the subject...
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Though it is precious that you think BBI is somehow the pulse of the nation.
Quote:
that the BBI Police Defense force is getting overstretched? Where's the true hero Rob when you need him?
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Yeah that is it. You fucking obtuse moron.
Word of advice - maybe stay out of the way when someone gets trolled by Nitro on a thread (or threads, in this case) they haven't posted on - the responses are usually not for general consumption.
Series question for those who are either involved in law enforcement, or have particularly steadfast in their opinion that police are generally never really in the wrong very often: taking the cost out of consideration, why shouldn't police be required to where small cameras such as go pros?
Unarmed teen reportedly had his hands up in the air when shot. We can "wait for the facts" which will probably never come off since the cops now have the video, and they are completely above the law so it will likely never see hte light of day.
Quote:
that the BBI Police Defense force is getting overstretched? Where's the true hero Rob when you need him?
Some of us have better things to do than debate the segment of BBI that is still upset over having their skateboard taken away when they were younger?
Though it is precious that you think BBI is somehow the pulse of the nation.
Personally, my distrust of the police comes from a couple specific incidences my family and I have experienced. One was a bloody nose when I got arrested for getting caught drinking beers in the woods behind a few local businesses at age 16.
Yes, I know it isn't all police (I've actually had some very good experience with cops, some of which were very recent), but it's hard to ignore a previous experience like the one I had.
One thing that bothers me is how cops are above reproach. It always turns into a game of "he said she said", and the police will always win. So what's to stop them from blatantly lying in police reports or to judges? I've seen it happen with incidents that occurred with my roommates in college. If one party is virtually never at risk of being called out at their lies, it makes perfect sense that they would never be honest in their accounts of events.
"There are no hard national standards, no binding state policies, not even a national database that tracks how often, where, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. The result, say scholars, is a free-wheeling space in American law and police policy. The nation’s 17,000 law enforcement agencies set their own terms—and when citizens cry foul, the courts spit out wildly inconsistent results.
"Pick up the paper any day and there’s an excessive force case here and an excessive force case there, and yet there’s no national data at all," says William Terrill, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. That contributes to a larger problem of excess subjectivity, he says, where cops who commit brutality can end up going free — guilty of what Terrill calls "lawfully awful behavior."
I don't understand how this data is not tracked. Yes, "excessive force" is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, but the public deserves to know how many unarmed citizens have been shot (and/or killed) by police. Why is this number treated as if it is superflous, extraneous, bullshit data? Surely even Rob in NYC can admit that it would be worth tracking.
On an anecdotal level, the number of stories that have come out regarding excessive force or shootings of unarmed individuals is alarming.
I've seen some great discussions on this site regarding the militarization of police, and wonder if that is the primary root of this issue.
NBC News - ( New Window )
"It was never implemented," says Terrill. The Justice Department did not return a request for comment. The FBI, meanwhile, acknowledged the shortcomings in its data."
This also calls to mind this article, which states that in NJ, 99% of police brutality claims go uninvestigated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/police-brutality-new-jersey-report_n_4555166.html
We can't leave it to the police to police themselves, since clearly, they will not. After all, it is common sense, as cops have a strong brotherhood and a strong bond, so they go above and beyond to protect one another (or perhaps, cover for one another).
[ur]http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf[/url]
Not that it stopped the cops from deleting the evidence in that instance as it was:
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html/[url]
They also actually used the phone to try and dig up dirt on the victim in this case instead of using it for evidence
[link]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/link]
link - ( New Window )
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf
Not that it stopped the cops from deleting the evidence in that instance as it was:
[url]http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html/[url]
They also actually used the phone to try and dig up dirt on the victim in this case instead of using it for evidence
[url]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/url]
link - ( New Window )
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/04/baltimore-pay-250k-videos-deleted-police-vindication-photographers-rights.html
Cops used cell phone to dig up dirt on victim anyway:
[url]http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228#!bB5170[/url]
Cops used cell phone to dig up dirt anyway - ( New Window )
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
They then deleted the footage from the phone, sparking an FBI investigation.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/05/15/fbi-investigating-california-deputies-for-possibly-deleting-footage-of-beating-death-from-confiscated-phones
I know the URL of this site shows some bias BUT it has links and excerpts from The Bakersfield Californian newspaper and the LA times. Within that story, there is another link to a man in Nebraska who had his memory cards taken and destroyed in a similar situation.
This has also happened in Dade County multiple times. Dade County had specifically changed their own policy previously regarding cell phones after an unarmed man was shot on the beach in 2011, with video evidence being destroyed (link is here, for some reason it only lets me post 2 links a post: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2011/05/31/police-confiscate-cell-phone-cameras-after-shooting-unarmed-man-on-miami-beach/).
Dade County 1 - ( New Window )
Please don't take this as sparking a "me vs you" argument. Rather, I am trying to just bring some news articles to the discussion. I don't have an agenda, but I do have an opinion. IMO, cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty. Theoretically, if they are following procedure, it should protect them and help catch perps who assault them if something goes wrong.
It would definitely protect citizens by providing some accountability to the police as well.
NY Times link - ( New Window )
That being said, I am appalled that video evidence has been destroyed in some of these cases.
That being said, I am appalled that video evidence has been destroyed in some of these cases.
I am merely supporting my position. Maybe, by definition, thats pushing an agenda. If there was an edit function I would put it all in one post. Having said that, I am hopeful that I am a little more thoughtful than some of the knee jerk "fuck cops" reaction crowd.
Oh please, give me a break. I have no beef with getting arrested, clearly I deserved it for being a dumbass and not drinking a couple beers in a friend's garage like a normal teenager. It happens to a ton of people when they are stupid and young.
BUT...I didn't run, resist, or give any push back so no need for me to get hurt in the process. Was I grievously injured? Hell no, I got a slightly bloody nose and a bloody lip. Was that still excessive? Yeah, I'd say so, unless you would have no problem with that happening to your kid at that age for doing something so innocuous that probably 75% of people have done.
Besides, this isn't really about me. All I was saying was that my views that police use excessive force are rooted in things that actually happened to me, and things that I see only support this viewpoint. Pretty sure a stationary scrawny 16 year old Indian kid in suburban NJ isn't really enough of a threat that would have resulted in me getting hurt. He could have just spun me around and slapped the cuffs on me instead of slamming my face sideways against a car. It leaves such a negative impression, that I still remember the cops name to this day, and still am weary in every single interaction I have with them.
And I'd rather not discuss my situation much further, because it's completely irrelevant to the scope of this discussion.
I guess the broader point I am trying to make is that people's perspectives are shaped by their interaction with the police, and most of the time, it's not because someone was doing something wrong, but more because of a disproportionate reaction from the police.
To be fair, I will admit people are much more likely to remember a bad interaction than a good interaction.
It would be pretty silly to do something wrong, get arrested, then complain about it. But when you throw in a cop doing something unnecessary along the lines of to either humiliating, embarrassing, berating, or hurting someone, obviously people will have an unfavorable opinion (not saying all four of those things happened to me).
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
Huh? I don't even have a comment on this thread that I remember or can find, unless it was contentious the moderators deleted it. If I did have one it probably would have been condescending and contentious if i did, so I'll take my medicine and apologize, but normally I earn it.
Quote:
Police confiscating and deleting video evidence or really just any interaction with police is well documented, been singled out as illegal, and is a pervasive problem.
So I'd appreciate it if you weren't automatically contentious. A 5 second google search would have brought you to the above links.
Besides, a police department using a cell phone to dig up dirt on someone suing them is just another example of how situations can turn into "citizen vs cop". That is so immoral on so many levels.
Huh? I don't even have a comment on this thread that I remember or can find, unless it was contentious the moderators deleted it. If I did have one it probably would have been condescending and contentious if i did, so I'll take my medicine and apologize, but normally I earn it.
My bad, it was BC4life.
I understand what you are saying and used to subscribe to this train of thought, but honestly, the negative stories you hear about police tend to be the same across the board and across different regions.
Personally, I find getting roughed up as a 16 year old way less egregious than deleting evidence off of a phone. But if we look at things such as accidental shootings, deleting evidence off of a phone, and police brutality (NOT what happened to me, but police brutality in general) it happens in both urban and suburban areas, poverty stricken and affluent areas (I will say there is a greater disparity between poverty vs affluent areas, but it still occurs in both areas).
From my perspective (and this is admittedly potentially uninformed), it probably has more to do with the fact that cops just don't really get in trouble, always will win a "my word vs their word" argument, and can pretty much do whatever they want without fear or retribution from anyone. Power corrupts people, so its not surprising that a particular role in society that has far less accountability for their actions while simultaneously possessing a ton of power over the populace act over the top. They are human after all.
Go Terps actually said something that really resonated with me -- you have no reason to trust your average cop any more than you would have to trust your average person. A lot of times, I trust them less because they have nobody to answer to if they do something inappropriate or use poor judgement (especially in smaller, comparatively trivial situations). Who's do you call when cops do something wrong... more cops?
Also,
I would agree with Sonic, however, that it seems increasingly unfortunate that some officers themselves do not recognize this schism and apply the same tactics and attitude when clearly inappropriate. If we agree that the risks and challenges of each position are wildly different then surely the logical response would be that the benefits and operating procedures should be different.
The question is, how do we as a society formally account for these differences and implement policies that more effectively serve the needs of our society. Hint: the logical answer is not to ignorantly reply, "well if he didn't break the law or talk back then he wouldn't have given the officer a reason to <insert transgression>."
Re: the video...who the hell do you think investigates the shooting? You say they can't take it without a warrant? Bull shit. They can seize it to prevent evidence from being destroyed. The search warrant is necessary to SEARCH the phone for the video.
The police can't take a random persons phone off the street for no reason.
I've never been arrested, am an upstanding member of my community, have a nice job, have an undergrad and master degree from great schools, and am in terrific physical shape as a 29 year old (end subtle brag). In theory I'd have been an easy candidate for the force if I myself had opted for that career. I'd imagine the same is true for the majority of BBIers. Yet I could walk outside right now, be ticketed by an officer purely for his/her entertainment, and roughed up. And I'd have what recourse, exactly? That's scary