Police shoot black man after responding to his Life Alert

[Aaron MkII]

General terms KS. As for paramedic certification, is that a requirement for an officer, officers in certain states?

I imagine it would be for any agency that has their personnel function in a paramedic capacity. However, I can't say for certain.

See as a Canadian, part of the disconnect is the decentralized nature of your nation and a lot of what goes on in it.

[aieeegrunt]

What happened here is that a black man was afraid to open his door to police because he didn't want to die.

So they busted the door down and killed him instead.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What happened here is that a black man was afraid to open his door to police because he didn't want to die.

So they busted the door down and killed him instead.

And if you're wrong about that when this whole thing is revealed?

[Akhlut]

What happened here is that a black man was afraid to open his door to police because he didn't want to die.

So they busted the door down and killed him instead.

And if you're wrong about that when this whole thing is revealed?

Considering he told them to go away, and that they called him a nigger and insulted his military background, I'm pretty sure they're fucking murderers.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What happened here is that a black man was afraid to open his door to police because he didn't want to die.

So they busted the door down and killed him instead.

And if you're wrong about that when this whole thing is revealed?

Considering he told them to go away, and that they called him a nigger and insulted his military background, I'm pretty sure they're fucking murderers.

Did you hear these recordings? Provide the link please.

[Agent Fisher]

See, that's where it sounds kinda fishy to me, the lawyer's account of what happened. How did they know his military background?

[Akhlut]

See, that's where it sounds kinda fishy to me, the lawyer's account of what happened. How did they know his military background?

Others were taunting Chamberlain’s military service after they discovered he was a former Marine.

Emphasis added.

Making an inference, his niece told the cops to leave him alone because he served the country as a Marine. And then those chucklefucks decided to insult him about it.

Did you hear these recordings? Provide the link please.

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

[Grumman]

In a just world, the police also would not taser a man with a heart condition, beanbag him twice and shoot him (twice). Those facts are not in dispute.

What if that man with the heart condition had a dangerous weapon and was trying to kill a police officer? Then can they use force?

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.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

[Simon_Jester]

No, it's more that I wouldn't trust a cop to assess my injuries and provide care till the EMTs arrive, even our cops.

Yes, but if it's a choice between a cop and nobody at all for three or four minutes, I'd take the cop... normally. But then, I'm not the one who's so worried about some kind of bizarre misunderstanding blowing out of control and resulting in a police siege where I get shot and killed. Whereas black people in America face the brute reality that this kind of thing happens to them more often than it happens to whites. They get shot more often, and it is ruled self-defense more often. They get pulled over more often. They get longer prison sentences for similar crimes. They have more trouble convincing the police that they aren't up to something criminal. Much of this can be verified statistically, even.

Which contributes to distrust of the police, and in some circles (i.e. young males) distrust for the whole concept of law and order.

See, that's where it sounds kinda fishy to me, the lawyer's account of what happened. How did they know his military background?

Others were taunting Chamberlain’s military service after they discovered he was a former Marine.

Emphasis added.

Making an inference, his niece told the cops to leave him alone because he served the country as a Marine. And then those chucklefucks decided to insult him about it.

Did you hear these recordings? Provide the link please.

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

I will say, in mitigation, that while the family has nothing to gain, they have a huge incentive to believe what they want to believe. If something like this happened to my father or grandfather, I'd probably be listening to any audio recording with a very biased ear: screening out anything that didn't support the narrative of "for an hour, he pleaded with the cops to just leave him alone, speaking very clearly and calmly, and then for no reason they busted in and killed him."

But I would very much like to see all this go to court, including the LifeAid audio recording that seems to be the basis for allegations against the police who broke in and killed Mr. Chamberlain.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

I'm leaning towards the family myself due to the amount of evidence they claim to have.

[Block]

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

The family has a shitload to gain in civil court. They probably deserve it too, and hopefully justice will be done one way or the other.

[Dark Hellion]

I do find there to be a sad irony that in the same thread were people are criticizing cops for an Us vs. Them mentality that those same people can display the same Us vs. Them mentality with regards to the police.

The "blue wall" may be a well documented problem with American law enforcement and steps should be made to correct it but pretending that the police as a whole are the enemy, instead of underlying problems of oversight and procedure, is not a healthy strategy for finding a solution.

Frankly, I feel like a lot of the progressives and progressive agendas of America have been derailed by a culture that seeks to be outraged at the proper things and to show the proper amount of outrage as opposed to actually trying to figure out real ways to solve the problems that so inflame them.

[ChaserGrey]

I'm leaning towards the family myself due to the amount of evidence they claim to have.

Easily falsifiable claims, too. They say they have recordings, a dispatcher's testimony, and a video from the police taser. Those are all things the DA can ask for, and discount their story if they don't match up with what they say they have or mysteriously goes missing.

I don't know anything but what's in the media, but I have found a good heuristic is that whoever's making the easier claims to check in a case like this is usually closer to the truth. If it was just "Oh, we know grandpa, he'd never do something like that" I'd be a lot more skeptical, but that's not the case at all.

And yes, if things actually happened the way the story says they did, those officers should be looking at a long, long time in jail.

[Alkaloid]

Easily falsifiable claims, too. They say they have recordings, a dispatcher's testimony, and a video from the police taser. Those are all things the DA can ask for, and discount their story if they don't match up with what they say they have or mysteriously goes missing.

The lawyers for the family listened to the recordings with the DA, so if they are bullshitting the DA is going to ream them. It appears the DA hasn't, so for now I'm willing to believe those claims.

[SVPD]

In a just world, however, DA would be publicly exorciated for calling for felony murder charges based on such outrageously biased pieces when the actual evidence is not available. If the police acted improperly, used excessive force, or murdered someone, then those facts should stand on their own and not need yellow journalism of this sort

I find it hilarious that as soon as a cop is accused of something we always get this "we have not seen the evidence, we have only seen stuff repeated through the [evil/cop-hating/incompetent/not to be trusted] press" spiel. The very fact of the matter is that the facts apparently cannot stand on their own because nothing happened.

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.

In a just world, the police also would not taser a man with a heart condition, beanbag him twice and shoot him (twice). Those facts are not in dispute.

It's interesting that in your just world the police always know a person's medical history, and that people with heart conditions are magically unable to ever do anything to justify being tasered or shot.

In other words, no, in a just world those things would still happen, just less often.

I don't know. Maybe by magic? Or maybe they just heard him comment on the lifebox?

Maybe, but we don't know, do we? All we have is the comments of people who are, in the case of the family, no doubt grieving, and in the case of the lawyers and the family, in a position to gain financially.

[SVPD]

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

There is no "scope of police corruption in the United States." Most of what is called the "scope" of it revolves around anecdotal evidence, and begging the question which is exactly what you're doing here. Even incidents where it's found the police did nothing wrong are treated as part of the "Scope" because it's assumed that some imaginary "Blue wall" or some sort of judicial or prosecutorial favoritism excused them in any case where it does not fit the ideas of those who are looking for a reason to be outraged.

Note: I didn't say there's no police corruption in the United States. I said that there's no scope of it. We don't know, and in fact it is unknowable. In point of fact, police corruption is a local or state phenomenon in this country, talking about it on a nationwide scale is silly and inherently inaccurate.

[weemadando]

It's interesting that in your just world the police always know a person's medical history, and that people with heart conditions are magically unable to ever do anything to justify being tasered or shot.

What's that Lassie? They were responding to a MedicAlert alarm? However were they to know that the person might be old, frail and ill?

And really, SVPD, I'm interested to hear you come up with a plausible scenario to fit the known "facts". If you were the repsonding officer/officer in charge, what would have had to be happening for you to ignore the MedicAlert dispatcher, the family member and the person who accidentally triggered the alarm all stating that there is no need to continue and force an entry anyway?

[Stark]

What if the officer in charge was bitter about people with weak hearts making taser happy police look bad?

[Akhlut]

There is no "scope of police corruption in the United States." Most of what is called the "scope" of it revolves around anecdotal evidence,

It's not anecdotal that the cops in New Orleans shot defenseless people after Katrina.

It's not anecdotal that the NYPD engages in a massively racist campaign of mainly frisking minorities for no discernible reason.

It's not anecdotal that police in Chicago were staging armed robberies and performing some breaking and entering.

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

Or how about the dozens of incidents across the nation of police trying (and often succeeding) to violate first amendment rights by preventing people from taping the police?

And so on.

Even incidents where it's found the police did nothing wrong are treated as part of the "Scope" because it's assumed that some imaginary "Blue wall" or some sort of judicial or prosecutorial favoritism excused them in any case where it does not fit the ideas of those who are looking for a reason to be outraged.

There are plenty of instances, though, where the cops have done a lot of bad shit, especially to minorities. Now, if in this incident, there weren't reports of the cops calling the deceased a nigger and insulting his military service after he, the LifeAlert dispatcher, and his niece all told the cops to go away, maybe I wouldn't be calling these cops racist murderers. However, those reports do exist, which makes it very hard to take anything those cops say in their defense seriously.

Note: I didn't say there's no police corruption in the United States. I said that there's no scope of it. We don't know, and in fact it is unknowable. In point of fact, police corruption is a local or state phenomenon in this country, talking about it on a nationwide scale is silly and inherently inaccurate.

It might be a local phenomena, but it happens across the nation. As such, when a situation seems very suspicious, such as a man telling the police to go away because he's fine and them responding by calling him a nigger and he somehow ends up shot to death by the police, well, color me a little suspicious that those cops aren't corrupt/racist/murderers.

[Simon_Jester]

It's interesting that in your just world the police always know a person's medical history, and that people with heart conditions are magically unable to ever do anything to justify being tasered or shot.

And really, SVPD, I'm interested to hear you come up with a plausible scenario to fit the known "facts". If you were the repsonding officer/officer in charge, what would have had to be happening for you to ignore the MedicAlert dispatcher, the family member and the person who accidentally triggered the alarm all stating that there is no need to continue and force an entry anyway?

I think there's some point-missing going on here.

In a just world, the police also would not taser a man with a heart condition, beanbag him twice and shoot him (twice). Those facts are not in dispute.

It's interesting that in your just world the police always know a person's medical history, and that people with heart conditions are magically unable to ever do anything to justify being tasered or shot.

In other words, no, in a just world those things would still happen, just less often.

What he says would actually make sense if he thinks that a "just world" is one where all the rules are just, and all the people have good intentions, but sometimes do the wrong thing because they don't know all the facts. In a world like that, people would probably still get shot by accident, unless the rules are "the police shouldn't even have firearms."

Thanas didn't specify "in a just world, the shooting of Chamberlain wouldn't have happened," and SVPD didn't say "in a just world, the shooting of Chamberlain would have happened." Thanas made a general comment about how wrongful police shootings wouldn't happen to a certain class of men if the world were just. SVPD said that they would happen, apparently without realizing that everyone would assume that he meant the Chamberlain shooting, specifically, would have happened, or another one exactly like it.

And if a just world is one where the police had good intentions and followed just laws but still carried guns, then... I agree with him. Once in a long while, an old man with a heart condition would still get shot by mistake.

This time, with Chamberlain, I don't think it was a mistake. Certainly not the kind of mistake that would happen in a just world. I don't know, maybe SVPD does think it was that kind of mistake, maybe he doesn't.

Me, I think in a just world, Chamberlain wouldn't have been shot, and if the evidence against the police in this case is remotely accurate, then it's going to be a slam-dunk case.

[TheHammer]

The lawyers hired by the family said it occurred, and given the scope of police corruption in the United States, I'll preferentially decide to believe the lawyers over the cops. The family has nothing to gain except justice for their wrongly killed loved one, the cops have everything to lose for screwing the pooch majorly.

There is no "scope of police corruption in the United States." Most of what is called the "scope" of it revolves around anecdotal evidence, and begging the question which is exactly what you're doing here. Even incidents where it's found the police did nothing wrong are treated as part of the "Scope" because it's assumed that some imaginary "Blue wall" or some sort of judicial or prosecutorial favoritism excused them in any case where it does not fit the ideas of those who are looking for a reason to be outraged.

Note: I didn't say there's no police corruption in the United States. I said that there's no scope of it. We don't know, and in fact it is unknowable. In point of fact, police corruption is a local or state phenomenon in this country, talking about it on a nationwide scale is silly and inherently inaccurate.

You are correct that actual police corruption tends to be very much a local issue. However, if you are really going to tell me there there isn't judicial or prosecutorial favoritism given to police then you are full of shit. Have you ever heard of a cop getting a speeding ticket? I sure as hell haven't. Even the best of cops feel that to an extent they are above the law. Most realize they can only take that so far, but unfortunately some don't learn the lesson. And generally speaking, if its a he said/she said situation with a cop/non cop the cop will always be favored. Key details that might make police look bad are often ignored unless they are made public. That much is universal, just as universal as when you and KS will bend over backwards to try and rationalize the behavior of cops and wannabe cops any time a story like this comes up. That is what feeds in to the notion of the "brothers in blue" where everyone feels like its a cover up.

Now, I'm fine with you reserving full judgement until the audio and video that they say exists is revealed. But even if there weren't any seemingly damning audio, I don't see how you can possibly excuse or justify the police behavior in this instance. Stop defending shitty cops that don't deserve it. If the 90% of police (or whatever percentage you want to use) that were "good cops" actually were more proactive about getting rid of the shitty cops then you wouldn't have the feelings of mistrust.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You are correct that actual police corruption tends to be very much a local issue. However, if you are really going to tell me there there isn't judicial or prosecutorial favoritism given to police then you are full of shit. Have you ever heard of a cop getting a speeding ticket? I sure as hell haven't.

Two of my coworkers got speeding tickets from Utah Highway Patrol last month. Seven total last year. (I'm assuming you are talking about speeding tickets in their personal vehicles. A police vehicle won't be pulled over unless the speed amounts to reckless and this is because agencies operate on different channels and that patrol vehicle could be responding to a situation that requires fast response but not emergency lights and sirens.)

Even the best of cops feel that to an extent they are above the law. Most realize they can only take that so far, but unfortunately some don't learn the lesson. And generally speaking, if its a he said/she said situation with a cop/non cop the cop will always be favored. Key details that might make police look bad are often ignored unless they are made public. That much is universal, just as universal as when you and KS will bend over backwards to try and rationalize the behavior of cops and wannabe cops any time a story like this comes up. That is what feeds in to the notion of the "brothers in blue" where everyone feels like its a cover up.

How many cops have you interviewed to conclude that the best of police feel they are above the law and define what above the law means to you?

Yes, it is true that in a situation with a police/citizen the cop will be favored unless the evidence suggests otherwise.

Define bending over backwards? And did I bend over backwards in this thread? Did I bend over backwards in the Trayvon Martin thread? This is a test.

Now, I'm fine with you reserving full judgement until the audio and video that they say exists is revealed. But even if there weren't any seemingly damning audio, I don't see how you can possibly excuse or justify the police behavior in this instance. Stop defending shitty cops that don't deserve it. If the 90% of police (or whatever percentage you want to use) that were "good cops" actually were more proactive about getting rid of the shitty cops then you wouldn't have the feelings of mistrust.

Neither of us have attempted to excuse or justify police behavior in this thread. You're delusional.

[TheHammer]

You are correct that actual police corruption tends to be very much a local issue. However, if you are really going to tell me there there isn't judicial or prosecutorial favoritism given to police then you are full of shit. Have you ever heard of a cop getting a speeding ticket? I sure as hell haven't.

Two of my coworkers got speeding tickets from Utah Highway Patrol last month. Seven total last year. (I'm assuming you are talking about speeding tickets in their personal vehicles. A police vehicle won't be pulled over unless the speed amounts to reckless and this is because agencies operate on different channels and that patrol vehicle could be responding to a situation that requires fast response but not emergency lights and sirens.)

Yes I'm talking about personal vehicles. Two tickets last month? Apparently you've pissed off the Utah Highway Patrol or there is one of those rare cops that doesn't play favorites. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule and we both know that it is the exception rather than the rule for a cop to give another cop a ticket.

Even the best of cops feel that to an extent they are above the law. Most realize they can only take that so far, but unfortunately some don't learn the lesson. And generally speaking, if its a he said/she said situation with a cop/non cop the cop will always be favored. Key details that might make police look bad are often ignored unless they are made public. That much is universal, just as universal as when you and KS will bend over backwards to try and rationalize the behavior of cops and wannabe cops any time a story like this comes up. That is what feeds in to the notion of the "brothers in blue" where everyone feels like its a cover up.

How many cops have you interviewed to conclude that the best of police feel they are above the law and define what above the law means to you?

Yes, it is true that in a situation with a police/citizen the cop will be favored unless the evidence suggests otherwise.

Define bending over backwards? And did I bend over backwards in this thread? Did I bend over backwards in the Trayvon Martin thread? This is a test.

I define your "bending over backwards" as to instances where you ignore common sense and logic in your quest to justify bad police behavior. To your credit, you haven't in this thread... yet. Every other thread? Absolutely including Trayvon Martin where you immagined unsupported scenarios favorable to zimmerman and insisted on taking anonymous sources, with the same weight as named ones. But I digress. No I'm not going to go back and hunt down and requote your words. They are right there in the thread for anyone who cares to read.

Now, I'm fine with you reserving full judgement until the audio and video that they say exists is revealed. But even if there weren't any seemingly damning audio, I don't see how you can possibly excuse or justify the police behavior in this instance. Stop defending shitty cops that don't deserve it. If the 90% of police (or whatever percentage you want to use) that were "good cops" actually were more proactive about getting rid of the shitty cops then you wouldn't have the feelings of mistrust.

Neither of us have attempted to excuse or justify police behavior in this thread. You're delusional.

Others would seem to disagree. SVPD more so than yourself. Not saying you both haven't hedge your bets, because obviously if the audio is what their family's lawyers say it is, then there is no defense at all. That's why your support has been admitedly much softer in this instance than just about every other instance. However you are the only two playing "devils advocate" to any extent here and that's not be coincidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes I'm talking about personal vehicles. Two tickets last month? Apparently you've pissed off the Utah Highway Patrol or there is one of those rare cops that doesn't play favorites. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule and we both know that it is the exception rather than the rule for a cop to give another cop a ticket.

We both know that? Interesting... Hammer, you're basing this conclusion off your own bias personal opinion with zero evidence and zero experience. Law Enforcement officers from different agencies write tickets against others all the damn time.

I define your "bending over backwards" as to instances where you ignore common sense and logic in your quest to justify bad police behavior. To your credit, you haven't in this thread... yet. Every other thread? Absolutely including Trayvon Martin where you immagined unsupported scenarios favorable to zimmerman and insisted on taking anonymous sources, with the same weight as named ones. But I digress. No I'm not going to go back and hunt down and requote your words. They are right there in the thread for anyone who cares to read.

So, you define bending over backwards as disagree with you. Good to know. I didn't think you actually had a point.

Neither of us have attempted to excuse or justify police behavior in this thread. You're delusional.

Others would seem to disagree. SVPD more so than yourself. Not saying you both haven't hedge your bets, because obviously if the audio is what their family's lawyers say it is, then there is no defense at all. That's why your support has been admitedly much softer in this instance than just about every other instance. However you are the only two playing "devils advocate" to any extent here and that's not be coincidence.[/quote]

I'm not playing devils advocate at all. This is why I think you're delusional, Hammer. Probably a bit dishonest as well.