Pretty big story ... A white police officer is being charged with murder of a black teenager. Teenager was armed with a knife and had reportedly punctured the tire of a cop car and refused officers orders to drop the knife.
However the entire incident was caught on a dash cam which is set to be released tomorrow. Apparently the teenager was shot 16 times, 13 of which when he was already on the ground.
The cop seems like a POS and had 18 previous complaints on his record. But I fear that once the video is released it'll have serious backlash and make Ferguson look like child's play.
Link - (
New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12643336 David in LA said:
Quote:
it's a very tough issue to address, there's got to be an underlying reason to why they exist in the first place, right? I can tell you Los Angeles has been trying to address gang violence forever without any real results. It fucking sucks to see kids get sucked into that lifestyle, when you know there are only so many ways that story will end.
I'm not trying to be contrarian because I find this despicable too, but do you think if people got as angry about every preteen caught in the crossfire as they do about every police shooting progress might be made? The distrust of police goes way beyond officer shootings, to be sure, but a kid is at much greater risk of death from other young men than he is from the police. If black lives really matter, shouldn't a good deal more focus be placed on the much greater risk to black lives, which is gang and drug violence?
you are not being contrarian, i have a similar thought... but that doesn't get ratings unfortunately.
There are organisations in Chicago trying to make a difference and to be sure many police officers quietly doing a great job. But like all good things that aren't loud, they get little attention.
Dune, doubt this what you had in mind but this is one women in Chicago that has received some media coverage.
"Similar to the premise of "Chi-Raq," April Lawson from the South Side of Chicago, wants both married and single women to join her in a sex strike until the violence in their city ends.
"In a patriarchal society, a problem will not be addressed until it directly affects men," Lawson wrote in Change.org petition she created for the strike.
Lawson is calling for all women to abstain from sex with men, amid the recent killings of 9-year-old Tyshawn Lee and 20-year-old aspiring model Kaylyn Pryor. She expressed in her petition that men in her community remain "apathetic" to the gun violence and murders in Chicago.
Lawson is not the first to call on other women to join such a strike.
Women activists have notably led sex strikes to end violence, including Liberian Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, women activists in Kenya in 2009 and women in the Philippines in 2011."
Women starts a sex strike to help stop violence in Chicago. - ( New Window )
Gotta rip off that ugly scar of apparent cover ups and a pattern of police misconduct before anything can normalize.
Although I do think that reflexive protesting of police misconduct is not necessarily helpful. Without speaking to any specific situation, if an officer shooting is being investigated and ultimately prosecuted, isnt the right move to laud to process? Sure there may be institutional issues worth protesting (e.g. if the training urges unreasonable action, such as shoot to kill etc). But of course there isnt protesting in the case of every police shooting, something we should also remember. Protesters do filter to some degree.
Quote:
-it's outrageous
The city here was trying to cover it up.
They gave the family $5 million before a lawsuit was ever filed. It's almost unheard of. It was a way to keep quiet and avoid anything coming out.
It wasn't until a lawsuit was filed by a journalist who is a freelancer that this all started. The city and police kept denying requests to release the video for months when the major local media outlets asked.
It wasn't until the judge ordered the video to be released to the public that the officer was then relieved of his desk duty, but charged with murder and was taken in. Until then, the Mayor/CPD wanted to keep this out of sight.
Is this an accurate account? This is the first I've heard of this case. If so, heads need to roll. This is exactly the crap that adds fuel to the fire
Additionally, Giuliani mishandled a office involved shooting, in that, he leaked the juvenile records of a victim of a police shooting in an attempt to tarnish the victim.
And, notwithstanding Giuliani's constant bashing of Dinkins (some well earned), it was Dinkins who hired most of the cops necessary for Bratton's "cops on dots" strategy that was at the core of NYC's crime reduction.
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12643306 GMenLTS said:
Quote:
I wanna know why the focus isn't on Tyshawn Lee..
The focus is all fucking wrong 9 year old murdered in cold blood - ( New Window )
That's an awful incident, but it doesn't involve the police. I get that there should be more coverage of this sort of violence, and I have to imagine that shining a light on it would shock and horrify many people who have no idea this sort of thing is a way of life in some sectors of society.
The light is needed, but it all comes down to what sells.
I was going to mention the media coverage in my next post, piggybacking off of duned's. I understand that reality but I just don't see why the murder of a 9 year old shouldn't sell as much as a cop shooting. Never did understand it.
These shootings to get coverage but they quickly get swept under the rug as it doesn't seem to draw nearly the fervor that these cop shootings draw.
And that, to me, is a national disgrace.
9 years old. Cold blood. Because of a gang retaliation. What the actual fuck.
I need to run to visit some properties out in queens but I'll be very interested to see where this discussion trends to when I log back in.
I share your frustration but we hold police to a higher standard than inner-city gangs.
I think they exist because compliant communities allow them to operate in their neighborhoods. Same reason the mafia and other organized criminals exist.
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it. Link - ( New Window )
It's the Fox News narrative. He gets the credit as he's introduced as an expert.
Quote:
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it. Link - ( New Window )
It's the Fox News narrative. He gets the credit as he's introduced as an expert.
Meh. NYT and NYDN have fostered the same incomplete narrative.
Quote:
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it. Link - ( New Window )
It's the Fox News narrative. He gets the credit as he's introduced as an expert.
It's also the experience of many of us who lived or worked in Manhattan at that time. Particularly true on quality of life type stuff.
Squeegy men? Gone only after Giuliani took office.
Aggressive panhandlers? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Getting hassled in the subway? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Yankel Rosenbaums? Never happened once Giuliani took office.
You can parse this with respect to things like national trends, but that's the timeline many of us experienced.
Which part? The $5 million settlement approved by the city before the lawsuit?
That is legit. It has been reported everywhere and the city and Mayor have never denied it.
The part about the Mayor/CPD keeping the video out of the public is also true. It wasn't until the judge ordered the video to be released that all of these actions by the Mayor and CPD begin happening. Question that would be asked is why would the city not want video that is to be public knowledge not come out?
And here is one other part of it too. There was a Burger King in close range that had surveillance running. But after the shooting, police went up there asking for access to their video. The next day, BK found out that 86 minutes of video that coincidentally happened at the time the shooting suddenly turned up deleted without their knowledge. Why?
The biggest issue was the Mayor/CPD had this info for 400 days and did nothing. Chicago politics has always been heralded as corrupt. Add in the police culture/corruption and it is a toxic mix.
I'm just hoping here nothing terrible happens during this time.
That said, Lee is a red herring in this discussion. This is about the problem with bad cops and the dept cover-ups that only recently have been getting appropriate attention (due to advances in camera/smart phone technology).
It's also the experience of many of us who lived or worked in Manhattan at that time. Particularly true on quality of life type stuff.
Squeegy men? Gone only after Giuliani took office.
Aggressive panhandlers? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Getting hassled in the subway? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Yankel Rosenbaums? Never happened once Giuliani took office.
You can parse this with respect to things like national trends, but that's the timeline many of us experienced.
The first three arent crimes, and the 4th is a single incident. I agree though, Yankel Rosenbaum was not murdered a second time.
If your point is to dismiss actual crime stat trends in favor of anecdotal evidence and non-crime policies, mission accomplished.
Quote:
In comment 12643335 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
is a justified response by the cop, then he should fire as many shots as he thinks are needed to get that done. If shoot to kill was not justified, he should be charged. But I don't think murder 1 is appropriate.
What a horrifying post. You cant honestly believe that there is a police manual that says you should finish the job, so to speak? What you're saying is, effectively, that if the manual say ok, then you have no problem with summary executions.
I'm not disagreeing with your point and I could be wrong but I believe it is often common for many police departments procedure to instruct that if deemed necessary to fire that they should shoot to kill including emptying weapon.
This certainly didn't look like it was necessary, the only remote reason at all would be if they thought he was going about to throw the knife at them. However since he is charged with first degree murder I doubt that was the case.
I haven't finished reading this thread. Had to stop here. Hope someone else addressed this better than I am about to.
This isn't Car 54 Where Are You, Dragnet, or Miami Vice.
There is no "shoot to kill".
There is authorization to use deadly force.
Using deadly force in no way implies any sort of intent or instruction to kill. What the fuck world do you live in?
Regardless of force allowed Law Enforcement officers are just that- they are never executioners.
In certain situations they can use deadly force to apprehend a suspect. That's it. Sometimes a suspect may die. However, an officer is NEVER, EVER instructed (implied or otherwise) to kill. JFC.
Quote:
It's also the experience of many of us who lived or worked in Manhattan at that time. Particularly true on quality of life type stuff.
Squeegy men? Gone only after Giuliani took office.
Aggressive panhandlers? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Getting hassled in the subway? Reduced only after Giuliani took office.
Yankel Rosenbaums? Never happened once Giuliani took office.
You can parse this with respect to things like national trends, but that's the timeline many of us experienced.
The first three arent crimes, and the 4th is a single incident. I agree though, Yankel Rosenbaum was not murdered a second time.
If your point is to dismiss actual crime stat trends in favor of anecdotal evidence and non-crime policies, mission accomplished.
Actually, even after Loper the conduct (i.e. spitting) was sometimes enough to constitute a misdemeanor.
And there is too much spitting on the street. Its disgusting.
And there is too much spitting on the street. Its disgusting.
I'm talking about the spit hitting something besides the street.
Link - ( New Window )
The important thing is how they did it, and whether or not those same policies can work in other cities: in this case, Chicago.
The important thing is how they did it, and whether or not those same policies can work in other cities: in this case, Chicago.
Since this thread is not about how to reduce crime in Chicago, wouldnt it make more sense if you started a thread on that, if you want to talk about it?
Although I do think that reflexive protesting of police misconduct is not necessarily helpful. Without speaking to any specific situation, if an officer shooting is being investigated and ultimately prosecuted, isnt the right move to laud to process? Sure there may be institutional issues worth protesting (e.g. if the training urges unreasonable action, such as shoot to kill etc). But of course there isnt protesting in the case of every police shooting, something we should also remember. Protesters do filter to some degree.
The unfortunate consequence of a lot of the anti-police protests is that whether they are right or wrong they have the impact of decreasing police involvement in these communities. And the result of decreased police presence seems to be an uptick in violence (as in Baltimore). There are no happy answers, people are rightly upset when misconduct does take place (though certainly not every allegation is true) but is vilifying the police force and discouraging them from active involvement in your neighborhood going to reduce the much more lethal impact of gang/drug/street crime?
Quote:
What Giuliani did in NY? You're giving credit to Giuliani for the work of Bratton and his braintrust/ Giuliani fired Bratton due to jealousy over Bratton's popularity.
Additionally, Giuliani mishandled a office involved shooting, in that, he leaked the juvenile records of a victim of a police shooting in an attempt to tarnish the victim.
And, notwithstanding Giuliani's constant bashing of Dinkins (some well earned), it was Dinkins who hired most of the cops necessary for Bratton's "cops on dots" strategy that was at the core of NYC's crime reduction.
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it. Link - ( New Window )
Probably because the city was a complete mess before he took over. I was living/working in NYC then. Whoever you want to give credit to, the city got better and it was because of an enhanced police presence, not less.
Quote:
Cops and other officials who cover up these questionable shootings should be equally accountable.
Quote:
It was just about a year ago that a city whistleblower came to journalist Jamie Kalven and attorney Craig Futterman out of concern that Laquan McDonald’s shooting a few weeks earlier “wasn’t being vigorously investigated,” as Kalven recalls. The source told them “that there was a video and that it was horrific,” he said.
Without that whistleblower—and without that video—it’s highly unlikely that Chicago Police officer Jason Van Dyke would be facing first-degree murder charges today.
continued ... - ( New Window )
Thanks for posting Sphinx. Anyone interested in reading an account of how this video came to be released should follow the link Sphinx posted (reposted below).
Its pretty clear - at least by the Chicago Reporter's account - the police and the city tried to cover up the shooting. Its the cover up and the protection and perpetuation of the broken system which causes people to protest.
If you being to prosecute the people participating in the cover-up - like maybe those that erased the video at the fast food restaurant - then you'll start to see these excessive force incidents go down. This particular case seemed to involve the mayor and even the city council. So, its a pretty big problem.
Story of the cover-up - ( New Window )
Quote:
Crime rates started going down under Dinkins. And also nationwide. And criminologists arent even sure why it happened. Though even while everyone improved, NY did a bit better.
I really marvel at the press Rudy manages to get. Kudos to him for it. Link - ( New Window )
It's the Fox News narrative. He gets the credit as he's introduced as an expert.
Fox News didn't even exist then.
you can target quality of life crimes and still focus on how the police interact with the public. this notion that you either take a proactive approach to crime OR treat people like shit is a false dichotomy
The point isnt to say Rudy didnt do a good job. Just to say that there were a lot of factors at play, and they're basically impossible to separate. Not trying to be political about it. There is some merit to Broken Windows policing Im sure. But he was sailing with a tremendous tailwind, and to not acknowledge that invites drawing some wrong conclusions about fighting crime, IMO.
George H W Bush feels his pain.
Some researchers say there is a material link traceable globally between the removal of lead from gasoline and a drop in crime rates.
The unfortunate consequence of a lot of the anti-police protests is that whether they are right or wrong they have the impact of decreasing police involvement in these communities. And the result of decreased police presence seems to be an uptick in violence (as in Baltimore). There are no happy answers, people are rightly upset when misconduct does take place (though certainly not every allegation is true) but is vilifying the police force and discouraging them from active involvement in your neighborhood going to reduce the much more lethal impact of gang/drug/street crime?
So this is I guess a corollary or part of to the so-called Ferguson Effect. Far from proven it is true, and early research indicates that it isnt or at least unproven. Murder rates are expected to be higher in 2015, but overall violent crime rate is actually down.
Big Police (unions, LE agencies) wants us to believe that the Ferguson Effect is absolutely real. But the implication of that is that we should all STFU, which I dont think is fair. The police can do their job and improve community relations.
I am terribly sympathetic to the plight of a cop in a life threatening situation; I think if you ask people to go into dangerous situations, you cant drop the criminal hammer on them for merely doing the unreasonable (using excessive force) but rather only for the intentional, reckless, or grossly excessive action. It's only fair to cut them more slack. But protestors arent riding them for every death-by-police. Brown (at least as reported by public eye witnesses), Tamir Rice, and now McDonald were all really challengable shootings.
The lead thing isnt as nuts as you think. The correlation, country by country, is really strong and that is mostly their point. And of course there is a reason we banned lead from gas and paint -- breathing it an eating it is really bad for kids developmentally. I believe that eating lead paint chips in early childhood is directly responsible for 25% of the posts on BBI.
But witnesses pretty much discredited by the DOJ.
With respect to the Ferguson effect, I'd be interested in comparing the national statistics fort 2015 (obviously not out yet) with those from the specific localities where the police have been most under fire (St. Louis, Baltimore, NY and now Chicago).
The lead thing isnt as nuts as you think. The correlation, country by country, is really strong and that is mostly their point. And of course there is a reason we banned lead from gas and paint -- breathing it an eating it is really bad for kids developmentally. I believe that eating lead paint chips in early childhood is directly responsible for 25% of the posts on BBI.
I can't think of the last time I thought anyone in elective office was 100% responsible for anything. Giuliani, IMHO, was part of the solution as opposed to being part of the problem. Dinkins (Crown Heights (Yankel Rosembaum), Freddies, squeegee men, etc. etc.)is a much more mixed bag.
If you had said the campaign against lead paint and the remediation efforts that had been going on for 15-20 years by the middle 90's had an effect I'd have given it a lot more credence.
If you had said the campaign against lead paint and the remediation efforts that had been going on for 15-20 years by the middle 90's had an effect I'd have given it a lot more credence.
Bad on me, not the researchers. 15-20 years is pretty relevant though, right? It took 15-20 years for the first batch of lead-free kids to hit prime crime committing age.
Quote:
Brown (at least as reported by public eye witnesses) were challengable shootings.
But witnesses pretty much discredited by the DOJ.
Hence my parenthetical. At the time of the Ferguson protests, what the people knew was that eye witnesses had said he was gunned down with his hands up. Seems like a legit protest, or at least not merely protesting any old death-by-cop case.
Remember that the carotid restraint technique had been taken out of service by LAPD brass due to many officers reverting to an earlier popular bar arm technique which was a respiratory choke. Without the availability of the pulmonary carotid technique the officers went to the taser. This was an earlier model which was usually kept in the field supervisors trunk and only brought out in these type of altercations in the field. The taser prongs did not penetrate King's multiple layers of clothing and thus the taser was not effective. The officers then resorted to baton strikes (many, many strikes) which were not immediately effective. Remember that the court gave it's blessing to many of the baton strikes and only deemed the last several strikes as excessive.
The result of the officers being retried for the same offense by the Feds (civil rights violations ) after being found not guilty of the state charges of assault under color of authority (I believe that was the nature of the state charge) was that a lot of cops felt they were subjected to a double jeopardy situation after having been partially neutered by their own administration when they disallowed the carotid restraint.
None of this address the other issues of the car to car communications after the incident. I'm not being an apologist but just adding perspective that is related to current events. There was a significant downturn of morale amongst the rank and file at LAPD.
Funny you should mention the subway. The reforms in NY really started with Dinkins appointment to head the transit cops (then independent of the NYPD). Bill Bratton. For example, from well before Rudy took office, 1991 NYT:
Rudy liked what Bratton did with the smaller force and named him head of the NYPD... until Rudy forced him out because Rudy was jealy.
This is the problem with saying Rudy cleaned up NY. It's ahistorical.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12643430 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12643335 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
is a justified response by the cop, then he should fire as many shots as he thinks are needed to get that done. If shoot to kill was not justified, he should be charged. But I don't think murder 1 is appropriate.
What a horrifying post. You cant honestly believe that there is a police manual that says you should finish the job, so to speak? What you're saying is, effectively, that if the manual say ok, then you have no problem with summary executions.
I'm not disagreeing with your point and I could be wrong but I believe it is often common for many police departments procedure to instruct that if deemed necessary to fire that they should shoot to kill including emptying weapon.
This certainly didn't look like it was necessary, the only remote reason at all would be if they thought he was going about to throw the knife at them. However since he is charged with first degree murder I doubt that was the case.
I haven't finished reading this thread. Had to stop here. Hope someone else addressed this better than I am about to.
This isn't Car 54 Where Are You, Dragnet, or Miami Vice.
There is no "shoot to kill".
There is authorization to use deadly force.
Using deadly force in no way implies any sort of intent or instruction to kill. What the fuck world do you live in?
Regardless of force allowed Law Enforcement officers are just that- they are never executioners.
In certain situations they can use deadly force to apprehend a suspect. That's it. Sometimes a suspect may die. However, an officer is NEVER, EVER instructed (implied or otherwise) to kill. JFC.
It's not my world, I'm not even in favor of handguns. And regardless of the verbiage used I believe that in many police departments they are trained to aim center mass, which is basically the heart and other vital organs and trained to empty their guns once they deem deadly force is called for. So maybe the phrasing is not shoot to kill but basically in realistic terms that is exactly what they are doing.
However instead of arguing about what its called and regardless what you prefer to call it the real point I was making is they are not trained to shoot to attempt to only injure or fire just once and then stop and wait to see when happens next. In those situations they are trained ho take deadly aim and fire away.
Slow, controlled shooting at a subject who is down and no longer a threat would be deemed excessive.
One of the arrests was of a well known activist was arrested for assaulting a cop. Charges have already been dropped. Hmmm.
Link - ( New Window )
Slow, controlled shooting at a subject who is down and no longer a threat would be deemed excessive.
Sigh, Let me try once more. I never disputed that shooting someone down and not longer a threat isn't excessive or said that they are trained to do so. Once again my point is they are not trained to try and shoot to injure or to only shoot once and then pause to reevaluate. Once they deem that deadly force is necessary they aim center mass and fire repeatedly and with todays weapons that will often mean many many rounds being fired before they will stop.
It's demeaning to good cops who make a little mistake to lump them in with accused murderer cops. But the blanket term "excessive force" kind of does that.
LOL. yeah I even agreed with you in my original post but was just trying to put it all in context of how many police are likely trained to respond if it were deemed necessary and which maybe Bill was referring to but then I also went on to say that IMO that didn't appear to be the case in this situation.
Typical BBI thread where people don't read the all the posts and draw wrong conclusions from select individual ones. Hey I have done it myself when threads get so long to where it is hard to wade through it all, especially with the confusing quote function we have.
Link - ( New Window )