Police shoot black man after responding to his Life Alert

[Thanas]

Or the LAPD being taped beating Rodney King for no reason.

He stepped over the line into apologetics stating that there's no "scope" of police corruption...

But seriously? Rodney King? He earned that beating. High-speed drunken chase, and then resisting arrest. [Which isn't to say that I approve of beating the shit out of people.]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I, Andrew Fireborn, am very pleased to accept your nomination as mayor of Thugville. Tread heavily and use a big stick, I say.

[CaiusWickersham]

Cops just generally don't like being told they cannot do something or enter an area.

For anyone skeptical of Fenix's claim, here's a dashboard cam video that shows what happened when somebody said "no" to a cop:

I'm Dominus Atheos and I can't check my sources

[Ziggy Stardust]

Though the possibility of tampering with a grand jury is not unreasonable. I'm just saying this isn't a good example of police corruption...more like civilian government corruption.

For the record, I agree with you in general, but on this point, in some districts isn't there a lot of grey area in the overlap between police and civilian government? Police commissioners are usually appointed, aren't they (though in some jurisdictions they are elected)? I don't think it's necessarily corruption per se, but there does seem to be a lot of politicking involved in the upper echelons of police policy, with appointments and relations to local politicians and judges and such. Of course, this is on the policy level, and wouldn't necessarily affect day-to-day police operations on the street, but in principle, I don't think you can ENTIRELY separate police bureaucracies and civilian government.

(Or maybe I have just been watching "The Wire" too much, heh...)

[Rogue 11]

Question: The police turned their own cameras off.

Just why isn't this enough to damn them ignoring everything else than why they came there initially and how it ended? In the professional sense if not legally.

I mean when dealing with a sensitive situation I'd assume you'd want it properly documented to cover yourself from wrongdoing. Turning it off when a socially charged situation like this happens seems to be the equivalent of writing "We are guilty!" in 20 meter tall flaming letters whether or not it's true.

Am I missing something here? Is there a systematic tendency to identify police officers from cameras and harassing them outside of work or something?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Question: The police turned their own cameras off.

Just why isn't this enough to damn them ignoring everything else than why they came there initially and how it ended? In the professional sense if not legally.

I mean when dealing with a sensitive situation I'd assume you'd want it properly documented to cover yourself from wrongdoing. Turning it off when a socially charged situation like this happens seems to be the equivalent of writing "We are guilty!" in 20 meter tall flaming letters whether or not it's true.

Am I missing something here? Is there a systematic tendency to identify police officers from cameras and harassing them outside of work or something?

No, you aren't missing anything. Intentionally turning off a recording device is a serious breach of policy.

[Rogue 11]

No, you aren't missing anything. Intentionally turning off a recording device is a serious breach of policy.

Seems to me the question that should be asked then is: If they aren't guilty why are they covering up? being extremely cynical it would seem that every other bit of evidence in this case are just useful in defining exactly what wrongdoing happened. That they weren't doing their job right and that a citizen was dead at the end of it is already proven.

And I'd hope that this would at very least lead to being fired and if possible barred from any future law enforcement work in the United States.

[SVPD]

And you've failed to address the question.

No, no I haven't. As stated, it would depend on the EXACT circumstances.

[weemadando]

Stop dodging.

I put it to you, based on the REPORTED "facts"/circumstances, what would have been required for you to force entry?

It's a simple theoretical, I'll even break it down.

You respond to a MedicAlert call.
You arrive and are told by the occupant when you knock on the door (who you hear stumbling about a bit in the dark) that everything is fine.
The MedicAlert person confirms that they've been told that it's a false alarm by the occupant.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) requesting entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue the check

Assuming you've requested and been denied entry now and the occupant is clearly upset and requesting you leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

Assume now that you are still requesting entry and the occupant has swiped a knife under the door (as alleged) and is becoming increasingly belligerent and asking you to leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

I could go on and specify the other variables, like the family members intervening, but you get the idea.

[Stormin]

Doesn't turning off the camera just add premeditation to the crimes that followed in a reasonable court system? The only reason they would do that is to keep it from recording evidence on what they were going to do next.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Seems to me the question that should be asked then is: If they aren't guilty why are they covering up? being extremely cynical it would seem that every other bit of evidence in this case are just useful in defining exactly what wrongdoing happened. That they weren't doing their job right and that a citizen was dead at the end of it is already proven.

And I'd hope that this would at very least lead to being fired and if possible barred from any future law enforcement work in the United States.

It's a valid question. Of course, like SVPD pointed out we haven't actually heard this evidence directly. The original article described the reason for police deciding to make entry was a "loud noise", however the official police statement isn't "loud noise" but;

"Public Safety Commissioner David Chong said the department received a call about a person in distress from Lifeline, an emergency medical alert system, at 5:08 a.m. Saturday. Officers heard screams and incoherent voices behind the 135 S. Lexington Ave. first floor apartment and attempted to negotiate with the occupant. The man refused to open the metal apartment door, said Chong, forcing police to work on prying it open.

“In fear of people being trapped inside the apartment or somebody inside the apartment harming themselves, the officers immediately called for backup and attempted to breach the apartment door,” said Chong."

Screaming paints a different picture then loud noise. We haven't heard the alleged loud noise or screams so I can't say whether this scream was of such intensity that it was reasonable for the officers to think someone was in danger or harming them self.

So, we have the pro-family article claiming loud noise and on the other side we have a pro-police article claiming screaming and incoherent noises.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Stop dodging.

I put it to you, based on the REPORTED "facts"/circumstances, what would have been required for you to force entry?

It's a simple theoretical, I'll even break it down.

You respond to a MedicAlert call.
You arrive and are told by the occupant when you knock on the door (who you hear stumbling about a bit in the dark) that everything is fine.
The MedicAlert person confirms that they've been told that it's a false alarm by the occupant.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) requesting entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue the check

Assuming you've requested and been denied entry now and the occupant is clearly upset and requesting you leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

Assume now that you are still requesting entry and the occupant has swiped a knife under the door (as alleged) and is becoming increasingly belligerent and asking you to leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

I could go on and specify the other variables, like the family members intervening, but you get the idea.

Wasn't this already answered on page 3?

SVPD said "If the facts cannot stand on their own then there is no case. If the evidence is anywhere close to what the family claims it to be, the police are in deep trouble, but we cannot tell that because not only is the evidence filtered through them, it's filtered through the reporter's spin-doctoring."

[weemadando]

What I'm trying to get at is an idea, from a police p.o.v of what would, in their perception at the time - assuming that they were at all times acting in a manner which complied with procedure (even if it was based on a flawed read of the situation), would have had to be happening for them to continue with the "siege" and eventually force entry?

Because I can understand that at certain points in the chain of events, that there may have been some genuine concern by the responding units for the safety of the guy inside. But clearly at some point (if it wasn't the case right from the initial refusal to enter) they seem to have flipped and just gone off the rails. If the "facts" as presented so far are true.

[Rogue 11]

Screaming paints a different picture then loud noise. We haven't heard the alleged loud noise or screams so I can't say whether this scream was of such intensity that it was reasonable for the officers to think someone was in danger or harming them self.

So, we have the pro-family article claiming loud noise and on the other side we have a pro-police article claiming screaming and incoherent noises.

Which of course we might know for sure if the camera wasn't off (Unless it was too far away to pick that up). Which would if that was screaming undermine the accusations cleanly, which is AFAIK part of the POINT with having police record.

The cops provably botched prochedure either on purpose or by accident. And at the end a man was dead. IMO the clear facts we have here. I'm putting all blame for this incident on the police. The real question is whether or not the officers involved can be criminally charged or not.

Are police criminally liable if they completely botch prochedure in the US and somebody ends up dead? Or does that vary from state to state?

To me at least the fact that they turned off the cameras effectivly covering up evidence casts serious doubts on the credibility of any of the officers on the scene. Especially since as I said this had to be an obviously sensitive situation. So yeah my personal inclination is to suspect foul play on the part of the police, though I admit it could be simple stupidity instead.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which of course we might know for sure if the camera wasn't off (Unless it was too far away to pick that up). Which would if that was screaming undermine the accusations cleanly, which is AFAIK part of the POINT with having police record.

The cops provably botched prochedure either on purpose or by accident. And at the end a man was dead. IMO the clear facts we have here. I'm putting all blame for this incident on the police. The real question is whether or not the officers involved can be criminally charged or not.

According to the article the camera is mounted on the taser which means it is likely linked to the taser. When the taser is turned on, so is the camera. So, if Mr. Chamberlain was hit by the taser then the statement "turn it off" could mean more than a malicious attempt to conceal evidence.

Are police criminally liable if they completely botch prochedure in the US and somebody ends up dead? Or does that vary from state to state?

To me at least the fact that they turned off the cameras effectivly covering up evidence casts serious doubts on the credibility of any of the officers on the scene. Especially since as I said this had to be an obviously sensitive situation. So yeah my personal inclination is to suspect foul play on the part of the police, though I admit it could be simple stupidity instead.

Actually, if they turned it off with the intention of concealing evidence then they could be charged with evidence tampering.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What I'm trying to get at is an idea, from a police p.o.v of what would, in their perception at the time - assuming that they were at all times acting in a manner which complied with procedure (even if it was based on a flawed read of the situation), would have had to be happening for them to continue with the "siege" and eventually force entry?

Because I can understand that at certain points in the chain of events, that there may have been some genuine concern by the responding units for the safety of the guy inside. But clearly at some point (if it wasn't the case right from the initial refusal to enter) they seem to have flipped and just gone off the rails. If the "facts" as presented so far are true.

Assuming the family/attorney are completely accurate and nothing is left out I can't think of anything that would make them want to continue with their course of action. Like I said before had that been me I would have said "Ok, bye".

It is possible they observed something that made them think otherwise. Perhaps they saw something on the metal object he stuck through the door that made them think he was hurting himself or maybe they were able to see him through a window and he was visibly injured. Obviously, that is pure speculation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Perhaps they saw something on the metal object he stuck through the door that made them think he was hurting himself or maybe they were able to see him through a window and he was visibly injured. Obviously, that is pure speculation.

Well, I imagine we will know that the "noises" they heard on the audio recorder were soon enough. The man however, was not visibly injured until he was shot so...

Actually. Thought experiment. Something in this thread spiked my attention:

If they've just broken into his house without justification? No. If they insist on acting like criminals, it's their own fault if someone treats them like they are.

I completely agree.

Is there case law for this? Let us assume that both stories are accurate. That the police responded to a LifeAid call that was not necessary, were told to go away, made racist slurs and insulted the victim's military service, forced entry. You know, basically performed an illegal home invasion after a literal half hour siege. They come in with weapons drawn, and the victim responds with whatever he has handy. A hatchet and knife in this case. I am not saying this occurred. I am posing it as a thought experiment.

Does the victim have reasonable cause to believe his life is in danger when police--knowingly acting without probable cause--break into one's home with weapons drawn. If so, is it legal to defend yourself at that point? Is it at any point legal to defend yourself with deadly force from police who are engaged in a criminal act against you?

Hell, there are places in the US where this is not uncommon. Sundown towns still exist and stuff like this happens to my people:

http://prideinutah.com/?p=2238

West Virginia – Timothy Michael Mazza, 37, was sitting on his back porch with his partner when 3 police officers arrived to question him about a bogus incident with his neighbors. After answering their questions, Tim tried to go inside but found himself on the ground being kicked while the officers yelled gay slurs.
[As Tim] was trying to go inside his house when the three pulled him to the ground. One of the officers then grabbed him by the neck and kicked him in the ribs, both Mazza and his partner, Kevin Swearingen, said.
“He kicked me in the ribs and he said, ‘Now take that, you f–ing queer,’” Mazza said.
Mazza was then booked on two counts of assault and battery on a police officer – charges that were dismissed in magistrate court.
Mazza has filed a lawsuit in Southern District of West Virginia federal court over the allegations.
He has been off work since the alleged October beating, said lawyer John Bryan, who, along with Mike Clifford, is representing Mazza.
“Both his psychologist and his treating physician kept him off work due to his physical injuries and post-traumatic stress and depression,” Bryan said.
Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell and Police Chief Joe Martin dispute Mazza’s claims. Newell said that if what Mazza claims is true, he should have talked to police – not to a lawyer and the news media.
“One said, ‘What, does the cat got your tongue, faggot?’” Mazza recalled.

In this case, the charges of battery were dismissed because Mazza never threw a punch. But what if he had? What if the police--on-duty police--committed a hate crime and Mazza had defended himself?

Is having a badge enough to make it so that someone an officer beats or tries to kill will be charged with defending themselves, even if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was the police officer engaged in a criminal act?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is there case law for this? Let us assume that both stories are accurate. That the police responded to a LifeAid call that was not necessary, were told to go away, made racist slurs and insulted the victim's military service, forced entry. You know, basically performed an illegal home invasion after a literal half hour siege. They come in with weapons drawn, and the victim responds with whatever he has handy. A hatchet and knife in this case. I am not saying this occurred. I am posing it as a thought experiment.

Does the victim have reasonable cause to believe his life is in danger when police--knowingly acting without probable cause--break into one's home with weapons drawn. If so, is it legal to defend yourself at that point? Is it at any point legal to defend yourself with deadly force from police who are engaged in a criminal act against you?

I can't find the case law but I am aware of its existence. I want to say it was SCOTUS that concluded that a person can use deadly force, or any force, against the police if a reasonable person would conclude that the police are engaged in illegal acts and your life or safety is in danger.

Is having a badge enough to make it so that someone an officer beats or tries to kill will be charged with defending themselves, even if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was the police officer engaged in a criminal act?

No, it is not enough.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Why can the taser camer even be turned off if not to cover corruption? Shouldn't it automatically record for a 30min period after an activation regardless of any action by the officer.

[Eulogy]

Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell and Police Chief Joe Martin dispute Mazza’s claims. Newell said that if what Mazza claims is true, he should have talked to police – not to a lawyer and the news media.

See, Mazza isn't stupid. If he went to the pigs' employers - the ones who are supposed to prevent shit like this from happening - then what guarantee does he have not only will it not be swept under the rug, but he won't suffer worse? Of course he was right to talk to the media and his lawyer; he has no obligation to make you or your buddies look good. Hope his lawsuit came through and the bullies got raked over the hot coals.

Yes, I know I'm talking about the article Alyrium posted.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why can the taser camer even be turned off if not to cover corruption? Shouldn't it automatically record for a 30min period after an activation regardless of any action by the officer.

I'm guessing because the camera was designed to cover the use of the taser and since a taser can't be used while off they figure it isn't necessary to do so and place additional drain on the taser battery.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell and Police Chief Joe Martin dispute Mazza’s claims. Newell said that if what Mazza claims is true, he should have talked to police – not to a lawyer and the news media.

See, Mazza isn't stupid. If he went to the pigs' employers - the ones who are supposed to prevent shit like this from happening - then what guarantee does he have not only will it not be swept under the rug, but he won't suffer worse? Of course he was right to talk to the media and his lawyer; he has no obligation to make you or your buddies look good. Hope his lawsuit came through and the bullies got raked over the hot coals.

Yes, I know I'm talking about the article Alyrium posted.

Oh yes. He definitely should have trusted the organization that came to his house, beat the shit out of him, and then pressed false charges. This is West Virginia. The place with a loooong history of backwardness and corruption (no offense to Tev et al)

It is a case of who watches the watchers, and in this case, it is journalists and the civil court.

[SVPD]

Stop dodging.

I put it to you, based on the REPORTED "facts"/circumstances, what would have been required for you to force entry?

I'm not "dodging" at all. You're moving the goalposts, and in any case, I am not going to answer based on "reported" facts and circumstances I do not see any reason to think are accurate.

It's a simple theoretical, I'll even break it down.

You respond to a MedicAlert call.
You arrive and are told by the occupant when you knock on the door (who you hear stumbling about a bit in the dark) that everything is fine.
The MedicAlert person confirms that they've been told that it's a false alarm by the occupant.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) requesting entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue the check

Assuming you've requested and been denied entry now and the occupant is clearly upset and requesting you leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

Assume now that you are still requesting entry and the occupant has swiped a knife under the door (as alleged) and is becoming increasingly belligerent and asking you to leave them alone.

-At this point, what would your action and justification be for a) continuing to request entry, b) forcing entry or c) there is no need to make entry or continue with the check

I could go on and specify the other variables, like the family members intervening, but you get the idea.

The only thing I "get" is that you are accepting unquestioningly the side of the story presented by the family, their attorneys, and a couple articles written in a clearly sympathetic fashion. You then constructed this "theoretical" based on that version of the facts.This is a very elaborate form of begging the question, since I have stated clearly that I do not believe that the OP presentation of the facts and circumstances is accurate.

What are you looking for? A statement that in a set of hypothetical circumstances where there is no reason whatsoever for me to be there that I'd leave? Of course I would. That doesn't describe the circumstances here, however. A lot of people here seem to WANT the OP to be perfectly accurate because it fits their preconceived ideas but the fact is that it's simply a pair of editorial hit-job articles. Even if they're 100% factually accurate, they're unacceptable for not reporting the facts without trying to spin them. Don't tell me they aren't tying to spin them either; they are relating the supposed feelings of a dead man.

[SVPD]

Why can the taser camer even be turned off if not to cover corruption? Shouldn't it automatically record for a 30min period after an activation regardless of any action by the officer.

Why should it record for a 30 minute period after the TASER is used? That's silly. You put the TASER back in the holster after it's used, and even if you didn't right away, you wouldn't be walking around pointing a TASER at whatever you were doing. There's also the problem of limited battery power.

[SVPD]

What I'm trying to get at is an idea, from a police p.o.v of what would, in their perception at the time - assuming that they were at all times acting in a manner which complied with procedure (even if it was based on a flawed read of the situation), would have had to be happening for them to continue with the "siege" and eventually force entry?

Because I can understand that at certain points in the chain of events, that there may have been some genuine concern by the responding units for the safety of the guy inside. But clearly at some point (if it wasn't the case right from the initial refusal to enter) they seem to have flipped and just gone off the rails. If the "facts" as presented so far are true.

Yes, if the facts presented so far are true. However, there's really no good reason to think they are. It's quite possible, given how outrageous the conduct of the police supposedly as, that the facts could be almost complete fabrication and yet just one piece of them contains enough truth that the police were completely in the wrong.

That's the problem with this set of "facts". Apprently, some people think it's credible that not one, but a number of cops not just were racist and overreacted, but essentially all went completely apeshit together over a lengthy period of time and when they knew there were numerous witnesses. It's almost as if they wanted to get into trouble and simply lost all sense of self preservation.

Yet this is somehow 100% credible.

[Broomstick]

No, you aren't missing anything. Intentionally turning off a recording device is a serious breach of policy.

Seems to me the question that should be asked then is: If they aren't guilty why are they covering up? being extremely cynical it would seem that every other bit of evidence in this case are just useful in defining exactly what wrongdoing happened. That they weren't doing their job right and that a citizen was dead at the end of it is already proven.

And I'd hope that this would at very least lead to being fired and if possible barred from any future law enforcement work in the United States.

If they are guilty of an unjustified shooting felony charges can be brought against them. A felony conviction will not only bar them from any future law enforcement work, but also a lot of other career choices. This does happen to police officers from time to time, contrary to what some people think bad cops don't always walk free.

However, proper place to determine guilt or innocence is a court of law, not the media or public opinion.