Police shoot black man after responding to his Life Alert

[Thanas]

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.

Is that not the case though? You seem to think that this means we think the police did nothing wrong. No, Thanas. If the evidence is how they describe then all of those cops in a position to see or hear should be charged. However, you have not seen the evidence. Evidence is so critical. Hell, even eye witnesses alter the truth. Everyone lies, Thanas.

So, is the point of these threads to circle jerk each other off and say "Yea!!!! FUCKING PIGS! LIFE IN PRISON!! RAWR!! GUILTY BEFORE PROVEN INNOCENT" You tell me? I'm curious what you and others find so fucking offensive about not trusting the media, bias family members, and just waiting for the evidence to come out?

I'll tell you what I find hilarious about this - you got people claiming this and that happened and that they got a recording of it backing it up. What motivation should the guy who mans that recording device have about lying about what is on his own tape?

Are you seriously telling me that these persons all engaged in a grand conspiracy (which would evaporate like hot water in the mojave desert if the recording wouldn't back them up) to really screw those upstanding officers who tasered a guy, beanbagged him twice and then shot him twice to boot? You tell me if the coroner is lying about those things as well. While you are at it, you might also explain why they felt the need to turn off their video camera, why nobody neutral in this case is on the cops side (also why the guy who listens to the situation is one evil cop hater and liar), and in what freaking kind of situation an ailing old man with a heart condition is after getting tasered and beanbagged to justify getting shot twice in the chest.

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?

Oh yeah, apparently they were so threatened they turned off the video before shooting him. Right.

Apparently they were also so threatened they called him the n-word and disparaged his military service.

And they apparently were also so very threatened they shot him despite repeated pleas to just go away.

This wasn't a Terminator waiting for them with a rocket launcher. This was an old, ailing man who you think apparently still posed a threat after getting tasered, beanbagged and after writhing on the floor in pain.

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

Lying just isn't in your realm of possibilities for regular citizens, right? Only white police officers...interesting.

Strawman. But before considering your ridiculous scenario of GRAND CONSPIRACY AGAINST HEROIC COPS, pray tell what motivation third parties would have to lie?

[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.

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.

Actually you've missed the point. I'm not talking about the tasering or the beanbagging or even the shooting.

I'm asking SVPD under what conditions would he, as an officer, feel it was reasonable to force entry to the premises despite all involved parties telling him it was unnecessary. I'm interested in if he actually feels that the entry to the residence, ignoring everything that happened past that point, could be justified and be protected under "acting in good faith" provisions.

[TheFeniX]

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.

Meh, I have my doubts. Houston had their own "go" at this years back.

"members of the task force probably had no legal right to enter Oregon's home without a warrant. However, "that doesn't make the shooting a crime," he added, because the law does not allow anyone to resist arrest, even an illegal arrest"

Sorry for the tough guy idiocy: but to this day I want to spit in that man's face.

Shit like this is why people don't like cops: it's not they do dumbfuck stupid things (everyone does that), it's that they weasel out of it with bullshit justifications spoken with a straight face while prosecutors and judges do everything they can to protect them (because, rationalizations aside: they all work for each other). Most cops are good people just making a living, but rotten (or just stupid) cops can get away with crimes that would put anyone else away for the rest of their lives. All 4 cops were finally fired after something like 6 months of paid leave. I know one got a job as a police officer in Texas again (County cop I believe).

None of them got jail-time and the whole issue was swept under the rug once the fervor died down, at least from what little reading I could find on the subject.

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?

Oh yeah, apparently they were so threatened they turned off the video before shooting him. Right.

Even if the guy had been built like a linebacker and armed with (legal) firearms, it's really not relevant. Cops just generally don't like being told they cannot do something or enter an area. It's a fairly gray area considering they did have probably cause to enter, which was then revoked by the owner. And it's hard to argue that they were trying to save a man who was obviously healthy enough to tell them repeatedly to go away.

My main issue is that the cops continued to escalate the situation for no real justifiable reason. They created a large disturbance in a residential area even after their "help" wasn't needed nor wanted. They easily could have walked away and let the situation diffuse itself. I don't know why cops don't resort to this more often in non-violent situations when the "suspect's" (for lack of a better term) identity and whereabouts are know, but I could take a few wild guesses.

[Stark]

That's what I'm curious about - in their minds, what was going on? When did they flip the disk from community service to storm the barricades? Why were they insulting the guy they outnumbered? It's not just the violence or murder, but their attitude and vitriol that fascinates me.

I mean I know that the second the 'cleaver' came under the door they realized they could get away with nearly anything by saying they were attacked, but it's bizarre that cops would have such bottled up violence.

Its just sad that if he'd stood his ground and killed the home invaders he'd be the bad guy. Lol!

[Dominus Atheos]

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:



That's almost certainly what happened here: Chamberlain told the cops they couldn't enter his home, they lost their shit because they're power-tripping bullies who believe that their badge and gun let them do what ever they want.

They're mostly right; unless the prosecution can prove that there was no knife (and every cop involved will testify there wasn't), the shooter is going to walk. Under no possible circumstances will the taserer or beanbag firer be charged or even officially sanctioned with anything, let alone the others who helped break down the man's door.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'll tell you what I find hilarious about this - you got people claiming this and that happened and that they got a recording of it backing it up. What motivation should the guy who mans that recording device have about lying about what is on his own tape?

The article doesn't quote the LifeAlert dispatcher directly. It is all hearsay from the mouth of the family attorney.

Are you seriously telling me that these persons all engaged in a grand conspiracy (which would evaporate like hot water in the mojave desert if the recording wouldn't back them up) to really screw those upstanding officers who tasered a guy, beanbagged him twice and then shot him twice to boot? You tell me if the coroner is lying about those things as well. While you are at it, you might also explain why they felt the need to turn off their video camera, why nobody neutral in this case is on the cops side (also why the guy who listens to the situation is one evil cop hater and liar), and in what freaking kind of situation an ailing old man with a heart condition is after getting tasered and beanbagged to justify getting shot twice in the chest.

No. I'm not suggesting any of those things. See my previous posts. I'm asking you what is so fucking offensive about waiting to see and hear the actual evidence?

Oh yeah, apparently they were so threatened they turned off the video before shooting him. Right.

Apparently they were also so threatened they called him the n-word and disparaged his military service.

And they apparently were also so very threatened they shot him despite repeated pleas to just go away.

Thanas you said "In a just world, the police also would not taser a man with a heart condition, beanbag him twice and shoot him (twice)."

I asked "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?"

Perhaps you should have worded your sentence like "In a just world, the police also would not taser a man with a heard condition, beanbag him twice and shoot him after they were agitating him through the door, using racist slang, and having enough time to disable the video".

If you would have worded it like that I wouldn't have said anything because I agree with you. It seem to me that you were implying that force is never reasonable against a man with a heart condition.

This wasn't a Terminator waiting for them with a rocket launcher. This was an old, ailing man who you think apparently still posed a threat after getting tasered, beanbagged and after writhing on the floor in pain.

Sweetheart. You need to calm down. Not once did I say that I thought this man was a threat. In fact had you actually read my posts you would see that lean towards the family. The only reason I'm not completely on their side is because I am bias against the media.

Strawman. But before considering your ridiculous scenario of GRAND CONSPIRACY AGAINST HEROIC COPS, pray tell what motivation third parties would have to lie?

We haven't heard from the third parties. I don't think they're lying though. Your smart ass remark just deserved one in return. Perhaps these discussions would be more productive if weren't so quick to be offended for one taking a neutral position in regards to a bias against the media.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Meh, I have my doubts. Houston had their own "go" at this years back.

"members of the task force probably had no legal right to enter Oregon's home without a warrant. However, "that doesn't make the shooting a crime," he added, because the law does not allow anyone to resist arrest, even an illegal arrest"

Sorry for the tough guy idiocy: but to this day I want to spit in that man's face.

Shit like this is why people don't like cops: it's not they do dumbfuck stupid things (everyone does that), it's that they weasel out of it with bullshit justifications spoken with a straight face while prosecutors and judges do everything they can to protect them (because, rationalizations aside: they all work for each other). Most cops are good people just making a living, but rotten (or just stupid) cops can get away with crimes that would put anyone else away for the rest of their lives. All 4 cops were finally fired after something like 6 months of paid leave. I know one got a job as a police officer in Texas again (County cop I believe).

None of them got jail-time and the whole issue was swept under the rug once the fervor died down, at least from what little reading I could find on the subject.

That case was presented before a grand jury which decided for whatever reason to not charge them. http://www.lulac.net/advocacy/issues/rights/hc11-3.html

A Harris County grand jury cleared five of the officers of all wrongdoing and charged the sixth with a misdemeanor, but an internal police investigation found all the officers had violated not only department policies but also state and federal laws.

Not really an example of police corruption.

]Even if the guy had been built like a linebacker and armed with (legal) firearms, it's really not relevant. Cops just generally don't like being told they cannot do something or enter an area. It's a fairly gray area considering they did have probably cause to enter, which was then revoked by the owner. And it's hard to argue that they were trying to save a man who was obviously healthy enough to tell them repeatedly to go away.

It can be frustrating sometimes when you have reasonable suspicion of a crime but not probable cause for a warrant. I'm sure some, like the idiot in DA's video, get angry and don't like it. Not all of us though. Also, your terminology is messed up. Probable cause can't be revoked. Consent, which is an exception to a warrant, can be revoked.

My main issue is that the cops continued to escalate the situation for no real justifiable reason. They created a large disturbance in a residential area even after their "help" wasn't needed nor wanted. They easily could have walked away and let the situation diffuse itself. I don't know why cops don't resort to this more often in non-violent situations when the "suspect's" (for lack of a better term) identity and whereabouts are know, but I could take a few wild guesses.

It boggles my mind. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would get so outraged over what amounts to a welfare check. If I was on a welfare check and even if the person on the other side was like "fuck off you pig mother fucker" I would just walk away. I'd be happy because I don't have to waste my time looking through cracks in the blinds to see if there is any reason to force entry (like them lying on the floor)

[Kamakazie Sith]

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:

Though he wasn't told he couldn't do something or enter an area. No doubt if that would have been the case he would have shot this guy.

That's almost certainly what happened here: Chamberlain told the cops they couldn't enter his home, they lost their shit because they're power-tripping bullies who believe that their badge and gun let them do what ever they want.

They're mostly right; unless the prosecution can prove that there was no knife (and every cop involved will testify there wasn't), the shooter is going to walk. Under no possible circumstances will the taserer or beanbag firer be charged or even officially sanctioned with anything, let alone the others who helped break down the man's door.

I think you might be surprised.

[Simon_Jester]

KS, if the cops in the Chamberlain shooting didn't "lose their shit because they're power-tripping bullies," then what the hell happened? I'm having a hard time even imagining another explanation- this is worse and weirder than the Trayvon Martin shooting for that.

How could one explain the situation in terms other than "cops go berserk, bust into house over owner's objections and kill him?" Now that I've got my head screwed on straighter, weemadando has a point about that: the whole incident just doesn't seem to make any sense without that, especially the step where the police break down the door in response to a welfare check where the occupant is saying "no, I'm fine, go away."

Actually you've missed the point. I'm not talking about the tasering or the beanbagging or even the shooting.

I'm asking SVPD under what conditions would he, as an officer, feel it was reasonable to force entry to the premises despite all involved parties telling him it was unnecessary. I'm interested in if he actually feels that the entry to the residence, ignoring everything that happened past that point, could be justified and be protected under "acting in good faith" provisions.

[blinks]

[rereads]

Crap. Right. Sorry.

[Kamakazie Sith]

KS, if the cops in the Chamberlain shooting didn't "lose their shit because they're power-tripping bullies," then what the hell happened? I'm having a hard time even imagining another explanation- this is worse and weirder than the Trayvon Martin shooting for that.

How could one explain the situation in terms other than "cops go berserk, bust into house over owner's objections and kill him?" Now that I've got my head screwed on straighter, weemadando has a point about that: the whole incident just doesn't seem to make any sense without that, especially the step where the police break down the door in response to a welfare check where the occupant is saying "no, I'm fine, go away."

I can't think of anything either. I think we aren't being told the whole story though. I'm not saying the police were justified or anything to that extent. I just think that the article description of the police explanation - "heard a loud noise and thought someone was in danger" is pretty shitty and very unimaginative for racist cops that are willing to murder.

[TheFeniX]

That case was presented before a grand jury which decided for whatever reason to not charge them. http://www.lulac.net/advocacy/issues/rights/hc11-3.html

A case presented by a DA who likely would rather not start shit with the police department, a judge who can instruct a jury to consider only what evidence he finds relevant, and likely a police-union representative, all of whom are on the state payroll, to a jury who found a bunch of cops innocent of something that, with the evidence presented even in your link, would easily qualify as negligent homicide (setting up an extremely unsafe situation) on anyone who didn't have the advantage of a shield on their chest. It's been over 10 years and I've lost all my links (if they would still work either way), but there's was a whole lot of bullshit with the Grand Jury indictments (something about perjury tainting the jury) that I can't show proof of.... which is annoying to say the least (I wrote a paper on this back in high school before my teacher kicked it back as too controversial).

Anyways, I'm getting off topic, so I'll drop it: I don't trust a bunch of people playing for the same side getting together and deciding whether to punish each other. Either in Texas or New York. It's like oil companies deciding if they'll let the EPA fine them and it's a weak argument to assume that kind of a system "working" is a defense to corruption claims.

It can be frustrating sometimes when you have reasonable suspicion of a crime but not probable cause for a warrant. I'm sure some, like the idiot in DA's video, get angry and don't like it. Not all of us though. Also, your terminology is messed up. Probable cause can't be revoked. Consent, which is an exception to a warrant, can be revoked.

Fair enough.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would get so outraged over what amounts to a welfare check.

Are we talking about the cops or the old man? I've talked to, seen video, and experienced first-hand cops who will lose their shit if you don't do what they say when they say it. It's like flipping a switch and it's fucking scary to see a grown man/woman with a firearm and the authority to use it act like that, even if they are doing it solely to force compliance.

[Dominus Atheos]

I can't think of anything either. I think we aren't being told the whole story though. I'm not saying the police were justified or anything to that extent. I just think that the article description of the police explanation - "heard a loud noise and thought someone was in danger" is pretty shitty and very unimaginative for racist cops that are willing to murder.

Here's the statement the police gave to the media the day after the shooting:

Police Fatally Shoot Disturbed Man Carrying Knife

11/19/11

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - White Plains police say an officer discharged two rounds, fatally shooting an emotionally disturbed White Plains man who attempted to bar officers from entering his apartment with a hatchet and then turned towards police with a butcher’s knife.

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.

A hatchet appeared in the crack between the door and hallway, according to Chong. An officer was able to pull the weapon out of the man’s hands. Once inside the apartment, officers say they continued to attempt to negotiate with Kenneth Chamberlain, 68, who had a butcher’s knife in his hand. He was alone in the apartment at the time of the incident.

Chong said officers then attempted to subdue Chamberlain with an electric taser and a bean bag gun, which hit him four times in the chest and legs.

As officers were backing away from Chamberlain, police said he turned towards an officer with a knife in his hand, prompting the officer to shoot two rounds from his revolver, which knocked Chamberlain to the ground.

Chamberlain collapsed on the ground and “continued to slash away at officers” who tried to give him CPR and then he attempted to cut his own throat, according to Chong.

Once the knife was taken away from Chamberlain, emergency medical responders tended to him as he was rushed to White Plains Hospital's emergency room. He died during surgery at approximately 7:09 a.m. Saturday.

The officer who shot Chamberlain, whose name was not released, is being treated at White Plains Hospital for chest pains and trauma. Chong said the officer is an eight-year veteran of the department who has never before fired his gun in the line of duty.

Four other police who were at the scene are also being treated for trauma at White Plains Hospital. Police and the Westchester County District Attorney’s office have begun an investigation about what transpired in the Winbrook Public Housing Complex apartment Saturday morning.

Chong said he believed officers followed all department rules and procedures. Chamberlain was known to the department before his fatal encounter with officers, but Chong did not describe the nature of the interactions.

Before you say anything, "trauma" is almost certainly bruising from trying to bust the door down. If anybody had slashing wounds from a knife or hatchet, the Commissioner would have said so.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A case presented by a DA who likely would rather not start shit with the police department, a judge who can instruct a jury to consider only what evidence he finds relevant, and likely a police-union representative, all of whom are on the state payroll, to a jury who found a bunch of cops innocent of something that, with the evidence presented even in your link, would easily qualify as negligent homicide (setting up an extremely unsafe situation) on anyone who didn't have the advantage of a shield on their chest. It's been over 10 years and I've lost all my links (if they would still work either way), but there's was a whole lot of bullshit with the Grand Jury indictments (something about perjury tainting the jury) that I can't show proof of.... which is annoying to say the least (I wrote a paper on this back in high school before my teacher kicked it back as too controversial).

Not sure how a DA not wanting to start shit with the department makes any sense. The Police Department found that those officers did commit criminal acts. From the article "but an internal police investigation found all the officers had violated not only department policies but also state and federal laws." 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.

Anyways, I'm getting off topic, so I'll drop it: I don't trust a bunch of people playing for the same side getting together and deciding whether to punish each other. Either in Texas or New York. It's like oil companies deciding if they'll let the EPA fine them and it's a weak argument to assume that kind of a system "working" is a defense to corruption claims.

I've said it before. I'm not against an independant agency or board reviewing and deciding on punishment for police misconduct. However, the only thing I ask is that they be educated on the realities of tactical situations.

Are we talking about the cops or the old man? I've talked to, seen video, and experienced first-hand cops who will lose their shit if you don't do what they say when they say it. It's like flipping a switch and it's fucking scary to see a grown man/woman with a firearm and the authority to use it act like that, even if they are doing it solely to force compliance.

I was talking about the OP situation and I know those type of officers exist.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can't think of anything either. I think we aren't being told the whole story though. I'm not saying the police were justified or anything to that extent. I just think that the article description of the police explanation - "heard a loud noise and thought someone was in danger" is pretty shitty and very unimaginative for racist cops that are willing to murder.

Here's the statement the police gave to the media the day after the shooting:

<snip>

Before you say anything, "trauma" is almost certainly bruising from trying to bust the door down. If anybody had slashing wounds from a knife or hatchet, the Commissioner would have said so.

Trauma could be from many things. If they were trying to breach the door using the hollywood shoulder technique then they are morons. That's a terrible way to breach a door. You either kick it in or hit it with a sledge hammer. You never hit it with your shoulder because it is likely you'll injure yourself but if the door gives way you can fall into the room which in a tactical situation is very very bad since it is unlikely you'll be prepared to deal with a deadly threat. I'm just pointing out that if they are well trained officers then trauma from the door is not likely.

Anyway, this story is more descriptive and explains why breaching was determined to be necessary from a law enforcement point of view. However, there's still the other evidence which is much stronger than the articulation of police. I wonder what the video the police have shows prior to being turned off.

[weemadando]

DA being an elected position makes him vulnerable to campaigning both directly by interested parties like a police union, but also indirectly, by undermining his work and track record with future actions.


Not saying that is the case, but it is a possible reason to avoid angering the police.

This is without going into the petty harassment campaigns which have also occurred on occasion.

[Grumman]

Here's the statement the police gave to the media the day after the shooting:

Police Fatally Shoot Disturbed Man Carrying Knife

11/19/11

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - White Plains police say an officer discharged two rounds, fatally shooting an emotionally disturbed White Plains man who attempted to bar officers from entering his apartment with a hatchet and then turned towards police with a butcher’s knife.

Call me crazy, but I'd think a lot of people are going to be "emotionally disturbed" just before you shoot them to death in their own home.

[SVPD]

I'm asking SVPD under what conditions would he, as an officer, feel it was reasonable to force entry to the premises despite all involved parties telling him it was unnecessary. I'm interested in if he actually feels that the entry to the residence, ignoring everything that happened past that point, could be justified and be protected under "acting in good faith" provisions.

That would depend a lot on who "all the involved parties" were and what the exact circumstances are. As to this case, we have not been presented with any facts so far that I can see. This business of "Oh, there's video and audio, but rather than show it publicly we're going to just tell you what we got out of it even though we're personally invested in the case" is not presenting "facts". Even the "facts as we know them" doesn't cut it simply because we can't tell what is fact, what is spin, what is outright fabrication and most importantly, what has been left out, and there is every reason to think that all of that has happened in this second-hand recounting of the case.

[SVPD]

KS, if the cops in the Chamberlain shooting didn't "lose their shit because they're power-tripping bullies," then what the hell happened? I'm having a hard time even imagining another explanation- this is worse and weirder than the Trayvon Martin shooting for that.

How could one explain the situation in terms other than "cops go berserk, bust into house over owner's objections and kill him?" Now that I've got my head screwed on straighter, weemadando has a point about that: the whole incident just doesn't seem to make any sense without that, especially the step where the police break down the door in response to a welfare check where the occupant is saying "no, I'm fine, go away."

We don't know what the situation was well enough to even start trying to explain it. That's the big thing here. No actual evidence has been presented, just hearsay filtered through the family and their attorneys. Like I already pointed out, the OP makes claims about what the man supposedly saw and thought, but he's dead. We're supposed to accept that this assessment by the writer of the article is necessarily accurate, when in point of fact, that particular claim wasn't even a quote of a family member.

[weemadando]

I'm asking SVPD under what conditions would he, as an officer, feel it was reasonable to force entry to the premises despite all involved parties telling him it was unnecessary. I'm interested in if he actually feels that the entry to the residence, ignoring everything that happened past that point, could be justified and be protected under "acting in good faith" provisions.

That would depend a lot on who "all the involved parties" were and what the exact circumstances are. As to this case, we have not been presented with any facts so far that I can see. This business of "Oh, there's video and audio, but rather than show it publicly we're going to just tell you what we got out of it even though we're personally invested in the case" is not presenting "facts". Even the "facts as we know them" doesn't cut it simply because we can't tell what is fact, what is spin, what is outright fabrication and most importantly, what has been left out, and there is every reason to think that all of that has happened in this second-hand recounting of the case.

There's a reason "facts" was in inverted commas.

And you've failed to address the question.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

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.]


I resisted saying it earlier, but the smartest way to not trust the police is to not give them a reason to overreact. Not always the case that they won't anyway, as that clip with the traffic cop flipping out shows, but damnit, there'd probably be one less dead man in this story if he'd opened his door the first time.

And it'd sure as hell be more open and shut that these cops are corrupt assholes if he'd done so and that hyperbolic open letter's premise of inevitability were true.

[Simon_Jester]

How afraid of law enforcement officials are citizens of a nominally free country supposed to be?

[Andrew_Fireborn]

How afraid of law enforcement officials are citizens of a nominally free country supposed to be?

Fear is weakness, it leads to mistakes and poor choices.

Respect the fact that if the mood takes them, they can fuck up your life without reproach, and potentially end it with a moments notice.

But, also realize that they're people, doing a job. So it's extremely unlikely to end that way unless you're doing something extremely ill-advised or live in a small enough town that that cop has a grudge against you.

Also, as we've gone over in at least one thread, in the US at least, they're under no obligation to protect anyone. Even those who have restraining orders out against others.

[PeZook]

Actually, the court ruling is that the police have no obligation to succesfully protect any particular person - that is, you can't sue police because a patrol didn't get to you in time.

[Simon_Jester]

How afraid of law enforcement officials are citizens of a nominally free country supposed to be?

Fear is weakness, it leads to mistakes and poor choices.

Respect the fact that if the mood takes them, they can fuck up your life without reproach, and potentially end it with a moments notice.

But, also realize that they're people, doing a job. So it's extremely unlikely to end that way unless you're doing something extremely ill-advised or live in a small enough town that that cop has a grudge against you.

Also, as we've gone over in at least one thread, in the US at least, they're under no obligation to protect anyone. Even those who have restraining orders out against others.

To me, this sounds like "very, very afraid."

If an armed robber tells me "get on the ground while I search your car," I'm going to do exactly that because I am afraid of him. Because I consider him to be a dangerous renegade who might well shoot me dead for no goddamn reason at all.

If a policeman tells me the same thing and I ask him for a warrant, it is because I trust him. Because I actually believe on some level that he's more concerned with doing his job than with proving how big his dick is now that he's got a badge. You may be familiar with the phrase "I have rights." You may even think having rights is a good thing. Real rights, not just "pretenses the government keeps up until it's inconvenient.":

Well, I think I have rights, and I prefer to believe that I do have rights, and that the police are not just another gang- that they are disciplined enough to do their job. So that as long as I do not make a real threat or do anything blatantly suspicious under their eye, I get to keep my rights, and to not get randomly beaten or shot for pissing them off on account of I asked for a warrant or denied them entry when they come around in response to a medical alert or walked in the 'wrong' neighborhood.

But when I look at what you write, to me that sounds a lot like "no, you should be as afraid of the police as you would be of any other gang. They cannot be trusted to do their job, and you don't really have any rights that matter when in contact with a policeman, except on the policeman's say-so." Maybe that's not how you meant it, but it's the effect your words have on me.

And think about the statement, as I'm hearing it. Does it seem wrong to you? To me it feels more like the attitude I'd expect in a tyrannical society to the secret police- that you should always be on the wary defensive whenever you get anywhere near them, because they can and will fuck your life up if they dislike you enough.

Something has gone horribly wrong with a democratic society if that is really true. It means there are classes of people whose rights do not matter, and who cannot trust the agents of the state to simply enforce the written legal code instead of acting wild and murderous and aggressive.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Take it however you want.

Know your rights, use them, assume he'll respect them. I do myself, but ultimately, you're interacting with a person with at least temporary power over you.

Perhaps the third statement distorted it, but my second was meant to show that, "Hey, above it all, they're the same animal as you. They just want to do what they have to and be on with it."


[quote=""Simon_Jester"]You may be familiar with the phrase "I have rights." You may even think having rights is a good thing. Real rights, not just "pretenses the government keeps up until it's inconvenient.":[/quote]I was looking for a different qoute, but this one sums it up much better:

"In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." — James Madison