Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Norade]

Indeed they all do make mistakes that cost lives, but doctors stand to lose a practice if word gets out, scientist run the risk of being fired, losing tenure, and finding their papers fit only to repel publishers with. Police are the only group that can harm you with near impunity and they are supposed to be the best of us. Not whatever happened to apply.

Again, a baseless claim. Are you going for a record or something of making claims and not supporting them?

Police officers are entitled to the same rights as everybody else. Thus, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had committed a crime. If that doesn't work for you then you can still sue, and many people win in those lawsuits...even some that are based upon lies because the city doesn't want to let it drag out.

Except that officers of the law enjoy greater protection than most as it is hard to gather evidence when they control the crime scene, not to mention the issues that should be obvious with their word against yours. That is without even mentioning that harming an officer carries stiffer penalties than harming near any other member of society. There is good reason, but claiming they don't enjoy extra protection than Joe Average is pure BS.

Yeah, that isn't the point. The point is two cops and another person are dead in the wrong house. Illegal or not it's still a preventable tragedy.

I completely agree. Don't get me wrong, Norade. The results of the OP are completely avoidable, and should never happen. Like I said earlier I don't see how you can possibly hit the wrong house if you've done the proper leg work.

Sorry for harping on that one so long then.

No shit, I already said it was stupid a post back, or did you forget by the time you responded? The fact is, people will still do things like shooting an officer after a loved one dies in a botched raid and damn the jail time. Damn it twice if the raid was served to the wrong house, and thrice if the cops shot first.

People will do that stuff in a legitament raid where someone gets justifiably shot. The only difference is everybody loses instead of just the police.

No argument there. We seem to be reaching an understanding finally. xD

The fact that it was an argument started when I was attempting to remove an unwanted person with a prior record from my house, I'd say it warranted a bit less than 4 hours. They sent two cars, so they obviously didn't think that it wasn't serious. Then the officers, approached apathetically did nothing, I myself having solved the issue in the time between call and arrival, and left while making jokes. Most jobs that would be enough to get you fired, or at least reviewed.

That was a top of head example, and likely not the best story, but every officer I've ever met has had apathetic attitude and usually they handled the issue in the clumsiest way I could think of. That combined with news stories and anecdotes leads me to believe that our cities 'finest' may not fit the bill.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. I wonder how many officers you've actually met? Given your track record of poor judgement which is probably due to inexperience in life and since you probably can't tell me the situation or why they handled in in the clumsiest way you could think of I'm probably not going to give you much credit.

That being said. Yeah, there are some very stupid cops out there. That's for damn sure. However, you need to think about how you phrase your sentences because you come off as "all cops are stupid". Which is completely inaccurate, and dishonest because you are not in a position to make the judgement.

Well, you do have a valid point there. I am only twenty-two and I try to avoid situations where I would met police. I doubt I could do a better job than they do, so perhaps it is unfair to expect more.

Right again, I didn't mean to say all cops are dumb, it was more of a frightening number due to the job sort of thing. I fear a dumb police officer more than I fear most idiots, and for good reason.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except that officers of the law enjoy greater protection than most as it is hard to gather evidence when they control the crime scene, not to mention the issues that should be obvious with their word against yours. That is without even mentioning that harming an officer carries stiffer penalties than harming near any other member of society. There is good reason, but claiming they don't enjoy extra protection than Joe Average is pure BS.

I would like to see a third party investigation team come in to investigate shootings, and other controversial situations. However, that's easier said than done. Would you trust one police agency to investigate another?

Sorry for harping on that one so long then.

I'm just thrilled we're making some progress.

No argument there. We seem to be reaching an understanding finally. xD

We probably always had an understanding, but emotional comments cloak the facts.

The fact that it was an argument started when I was attempting to remove an unwanted person with a prior record from my house, I'd say it warranted a bit less than 4 hours. They sent two cars, so they obviously didn't think that it wasn't serious. Then the officers, approached apathetically did nothing, I myself having solved the issue in the time between call and arrival, and left while making jokes. Most jobs that would be enough to get you fired, or at least reviewed.

I somehow missed this. Anyway, a two car response is standard for all but in progress violence. As for an unwanted person being at your house. That is a bit more serious, but still isn't more serious than a domestic violence situation, for example.

As for the officers doing something? The truth is there isn't much they could have done anyway. If they would have arrived when this person was still at your place you would have told the police that you have an unwanted person in your home and you'd like him to leave. They'd go and ask him to leave. If he refused he be arrested for trespassing and most likely issued a misdemeanor citation, but if it looked like he was going to continue they'd take him to jail for criminal trespassing which is not a serious crime, and is why it probably took so long because that will take a lower priority than more serious crimes that come in.

As for this persons criminal history. Did you give the dispatcher his name and date of birth? If not they have no way of verifying, and I imagine they asked you if he was becoming violent?

Well, you do have a valid point there. I am only twenty-two and I try to avoid situations where I would met police. I doubt I could do a better job than they do, so perhaps it is unfair to expect more.

Right again, I didn't mean to say all cops are dumb, it was more of a frightening number due to the job sort of thing. I fear a dumb police officer more than I fear most idiots, and for good reason.

I can understand that. Dumb people in positions of power are very scary. That's a reasonable position to hold.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, of course not but the way you are doing it now is basically trying to club it into their heads and hope they'll bleed out the stupid. If you were the Mayor trying to calm the public down, you'd tanked.

I always knew I'd make a terrible politician.

Your arguments pretty much defend the police. Stating their procedures and so forth of why they do the things they do should be part your argument but not the whole. What you are not doing is addressing the other side of the equation which is the people they are suppose to protect.

The main problem I see here is you are not convincing us to trust the police at the levels we need to which is a very large issue at stake here given what has occurred. If people are considering fighting first and ask questions later even if it is the police, it means they think their lives are in danger no matter if it's a good or bad cop. They are not going to give a shit about getting positive identification because most people don't have a 'bad' detector. You have people that have anecdote claims or watch too many television shows involving bad cops and your job should be to defuse them by stating what police are doing about those kind of things or if they are not as prominent as they seem to be. Are there a considerable amount of these troublemakers of the force actually being reprimanded/demoted or kicked off the force, or are they hiding behind the Blue Wall of Silence and getting away with it?

I don't think I can convince people to trust the police. All I can do is educate people why they do the things they do in certain situations which to the average person might seem excessive.

Funny thing is, you asked Vendetta to provide a source if a great majority of SWAT teams are doing such things to convince yourself but must actually be done to help convince the public being served to not shoot at you.

I asked Vendatta to support a claim that I thought he was making. Specifically, that the information supports the reasoning that a SWAT teaming entering your house is there to kill you.

Anyway, as I said before I can only tell you proper police procedure and law. I didn't come in this thread to win over the hearts and minds, but to simply educate.

If there is anything to take from this case is when feasible, cops should not only have a camera in their car but on themselves as well. The only reason I see here that this officer did not get away with lying about shooting in a struggle was because of the camera crew that filmed it giving damning evidence that he cannot escape from.

Not really. This probably would have been discovered by ballistic testing of the round. The evidence would have shown that he was lying. This is assuming that the round that killed that girl did in fact come from outside the house and not inside.

Example - Utah has a very liberal home defense law. Basically, if you kill an intruder in your home it is assumed that the intruder was there to do you harm. However, an investigation will be done and if the evidence shows that the intruder wasn't engaged in active aggression then you're in deep shit. Anyway, this guy claims he shot this other guy in self defense. He stated that the victim was coming at him so he shot him. Crime Technicians were able to show that the victim was sitting down when shot, and the subject was actually standing. So, it's highly unlikely that the officers lie would have remained undetected. Still, cameras are always helpful, and to police as well.

[Vendetta]

I don't think I can convince people to trust the police. All I can do is educate people why they do the things they do in certain situations which to the average person might seem excessive.

On the other hand, someone needs to, because the trust of the public is the one thing above all that the police need to have in order to function.

Lack of trust in the police is one of the things that causes neighbourhoods to evolve codes of silence where no-one talks to the police about crimes, in the last one of these threads didn't we get a story about a boy who stuck to that even as he was dying, refusing to name the person he knew killed him.

[Kamakazie Sith]

On the other hand, someone needs to, because the trust of the public is the one thing above all that the police need to have in order to function.

Lack of trust in the police is one of the things that causes neighbourhoods to evolve codes of silence where no-one talks to the police about crimes, in the last one of these threads didn't we get a story about a boy who stuck to that even as he was dying, refusing to name the person he knew killed him.

Lack of trust probably does play a part, but it is mostly fear of reprisal from the friends of the person they help arrest. Among certain gang culture if you violate that code you put your family in danger.

Some does need to, but I don't know what that would entail nor do I think it is actually possible.

[Norade]

Except that officers of the law enjoy greater protection than most as it is hard to gather evidence when they control the crime scene, not to mention the issues that should be obvious with their word against yours. That is without even mentioning that harming an officer carries stiffer penalties than harming near any other member of society. There is good reason, but claiming they don't enjoy extra protection than Joe Average is pure BS.

I would like to see a third party investigation team come in to investigate shootings, and other controversial situations. However, that's easier said than done. Would you trust one police agency to investigate another?

That isn't the best but as a intermediate step it would work. I know in some places they already do this.

The fact that it was an argument started when I was attempting to remove an unwanted person with a prior record from my house, I'd say it warranted a bit less than 4 hours. They sent two cars, so they obviously didn't think that it wasn't serious. Then the officers, approached apathetically did nothing, I myself having solved the issue in the time between call and arrival, and left while making jokes. Most jobs that would be enough to get you fired, or at least reviewed.

I somehow missed this. Anyway, a two car response is standard for all but in progress violence. As for an unwanted person being at your house. That is a bit more serious, but still isn't more serious than a domestic violence situation, for example.

As for the officers doing something? The truth is there isn't much they could have done anyway. If they would have arrived when this person was still at your place you would have told the police that you have an unwanted person in your home and you'd like him to leave. They'd go and ask him to leave. If he refused he be arrested for trespassing and most likely issued a misdemeanor citation, but if it looked like he was going to continue they'd take him to jail for criminal trespassing which is not a serious crime, and is why it probably took so long because that will take a lower priority than more serious crimes that come in.

As for this persons criminal history. Did you give the dispatcher his name and date of birth? If not they have no way of verifying, and I imagine they asked you if he was becoming violent?

You're right, they arrived after the situation was handled so there was nothing to do. I would have liked to see a bit more urgency from them though, but it was 4am when they arrived.

Yes, I gave his first name, but I didn't know his last name so you're right in that they couldn't confirm. They did ask if he was becoming violent and I said he'd threatened me and seemed likely to become violent. Only my roomy coming down to see what they hell was up seemed to really defuse things.

[Big Phil]

Soontir, I'm not sure what macho chest beating you're refering to? Have you read the entire thread? Can you tell me what motivated my second post in this thread and thus started the following conversation?

The chest beating refers only to Sanchez's post.

What exactly are you referring to? Me mocking people who claim they'll be going down shooting if the cops come busting through their door? Are you suggesting that any of these wankers aren't worthy of mockery?

As for helping? How would you recommend we help in this situation? Should we encourage generalization fallacies? Should we tolerate them? Should we tolerate remarks about shooting cops coming to your house?

No, of course not but the way you are doing it now is basically trying to club it into their heads and hope they'll bleed out the stupid. If you were the Mayor trying to calm the public down, you'd tanked.

Your arguments pretty much defend the police. Stating their procedures and so forth of why they do the things they do should be part your argument but not the whole. What you are not doing is addressing the other side of the equation which is the people they are suppose to protect.

The main problem I see here is you are not convincing us to trust the police at the levels we need to which is a very large issue at stake here given what has occurred. If people are considering fighting first and ask questions later even if it is the police, it means they think their lives are in danger no matter if it's a good or bad cop. They are not going to give a shit about getting positive identification because most people don't have a 'bad' detector. You have people that have anecdote claims or watch too many television shows involving bad cops and your job should be to defuse them by stating what police are doing about those kind of things or if they are not as prominent as they seem to be. Are there a considerable amount of these troublemakers of the force actually being reprimanded/demoted or kicked off the force, or are they hiding behind the Blue Wall of Silence and getting away with it?

You make a very good point here - of course this isn't what's been talked about in this thread, but it's still an excellent point. The reality, however, is that the police have NEVER been bastions of truth and justice, except among middle and upper-class white people during the 1940's and 1950's. Ethnic minorities, women, etc., have all be victimized by American police throughout our history, police have always been agents of government, business, or special interests, and the police have always been somewhat outside the law. The expectation that all police adhere to ethical principles, and that they be held to a common standard, is a fairly new expectation.

[Alphawolf55]

My main problem is this supposed taboo against speaking out against police. Sure it's okay for the average joe to say he dislikes cops but high end media and politcians can never get away with it. We're allowed to hate Republicans, Democrats, Soldiers, Guys who work retail, DMV employees, Unions, politicians, teachers in general but speaking out against cops? That's a big no-no for some reason. Whenever cops do anything it's the same 'These are our best citizens in blue" even when it's clearly not true in certain circumstances like that department in Brooklyn I made a thread about.

Additionally, it seems cops always want to take credit for any decrease in crime but never own up to an increase.

[Alyeska]

As much as I liked to sympathize with cops, reading this thread of Kami, Alyeska, and especially Sanchez's response of macho chest beating makes me feel that I shouldn't give two shits about them.

What I am taking out of this thread is that people are scared of these sort of things happening from an organization that we need to trust pretty much completely and you guys are not helping.

Put up or fucking shut up. We are not defending the bad cops. We are saying that slandering an entire fucking profession is dishonest.

[Simon_Jester]

The point is if it does have that effect on you then you will be stunned. You won't be fighting, or responding.

OK. Granted. I was overestimating the deafening radius of a flashbang relative to the stunning radius.

And do you think people think of them as that? Or do people realize that this is actually a mistake?

I don't know; I worry. I like the idea of police being able to enforce the law by using efficient tactics that preserve their safety without compromising the public sense that the police are trustworthy people who are on their side. But I see a potential conflict in there, one that nags at me because I don't see a way to solve it.

Guilt by association.
"I believe my local police are idiots, ergo ALL police are idiots"
Logical fallacy.

You don't need all police to be idiots (or corrupt) to make a major problem for the country. Police are everywhere, and they interact with nearly everyone. When even a small minority of them are being too trigger-happy or too quick to use their power over citizens to push them around, the consequences stack up fast.

This issue can be important even if Norade is overstating how bad it is.

[Soontir C'boath]

Put up or fucking shut up. We are not defending the bad cops. We are saying that slandering an entire fucking profession is dishonest.

Put up what? I was merely giving my state of mind after reading your posts.

What exactly are you referring to? Me mocking people who claim they'll be going down shooting if the cops come busting through their door? Are you suggesting that any of these wankers aren't worthy of mockery?

Mockery's all good and fun but in this case, I'm taking exception since the fact that there are people who have reach the conclusion that is a good idea to get into a firefight with police at all should have the line of thinking addressed.

In this case, a seven year old girl was killed and when I read their posts with that in mind, they read more like people who want to defend their love ones so they don't get killed too by some wanker of a cop.

You make a very good point here - of course this isn't what's been talked about in this thread, but it's still an excellent point. The reality, however, is that the police have NEVER been bastions of truth and justice, except among middle and upper-class white people during the 1940's and 1950's. Ethnic minorities, women, etc., have all be victimized by American police throughout our history, police have always been agents of government, business, or special interests, and the police have always been somewhat outside the law. The expectation that all police adhere to ethical principles, and that they be held to a common standard, is a fairly new expectation.

I find it ironic that Alyeska doesn't want us slandering the police when you seem to state that the overall force is an organization not to be considered in good regard.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

On the other hand, someone needs to, because the trust of the public is the one thing above all that the police need to have in order to function.

Lack of trust in the police is one of the things that causes neighbourhoods to evolve codes of silence where no-one talks to the police about crimes, in the last one of these threads didn't we get a story about a boy who stuck to that even as he was dying, refusing to name the person he knew killed him.

Lack of trust probably does play a part, but it is mostly fear of reprisal from the friends of the person they help arrest. Among certain gang culture if you violate that code you put your family in danger.

Some does need to, but I don't know what that would entail nor do I think it is actually possible.

The fear of reprisal is tied to the lack of trust in the police, I think. If you can't trust that the police will protect you from such reprisal, you're much less likely to talk to them, right? That is something that the police could work harder at, I think.

[SVPD]

The fear of reprisal is tied to the lack of trust in the police, I think. If you can't trust that the police will protect you from such reprisal, you're much less likely to talk to them, right? That is something that the police could work harder at, I think.

How would the police go about "working harder" at this, and how much would it cost in either other areas that were then neglected, or in additional funds to have more men and equipment?

The police are already out there on patrol if someone becomes a victim of retaliation and can be summoned. There are nowhere near enough cops, however, to keep an eye on every single person who fears retaliation all the time. Criminals will just wait until that person is uncovered and then make their move, just like they do now. They go after people at perceived moments of vulnerability.

You might luck out sometimes and learn in advance that "the local Crips are going to ambush Smith when he closes his store tonight because he told us they were dealing drugs outside his establishment." and then it's a good idea to show up and arrest the criminals when they make their move (assuming you don't scare them off accidentally) but without that advance warning there's not a lot of ways in which the police can "work harder" at protecting people from retaliation.

[Big Phil]

What exactly are you referring to? Me mocking people who claim they'll be going down shooting if the cops come busting through their door? Are you suggesting that any of these wankers aren't worthy of mockery?

Mockery's all good and fun but in this case, I'm taking exception since the fact that there are people who have reach the conclusion that is a good idea to get into a firefight with police at all should have the line of thinking addressed.

In this case, a seven year old girl was killed and when I read their posts with that in mind, they read more like people who want to defend their love ones so they don't get killed too by some wanker of a cop.

Given that this is a board filled with people who are afraid to talk to girls, I sincerely doubt that any of them have the courage to even bluster when confronted by the police.

You make a very good point here - of course this isn't what's been talked about in this thread, but it's still an excellent point. The reality, however, is that the police have NEVER been bastions of truth and justice, except among middle and upper-class white people during the 1940's and 1950's. Ethnic minorities, women, etc., have all be victimized by American police throughout our history, police have always been agents of government, business, or special interests, and the police have always been somewhat outside the law. The expectation that all police adhere to ethical principles, and that they be held to a common standard, is a fairly new expectation.

I find it ironic that Alyeska doesn't want us slandering the police when you seem to state that the overall force is an organization not to be considered in good regard.

There are substantial populations within the United States who have historically been mistreated by the police - immigrants, blacks, hispanics, asians, women, poor white people, etc. This myth that all police officers are good... except for one or two bad apples is complete hogwash. Some police departments are highly corrupt (New Orleans, for example), while others are well known to cross the line of rights violations without outright corruption (New York, Los Angeles). It's not simply a black/white issue, and it annoys me that people treat police as such.

[Soontir C'boath]

There are substantial populations within the United States who have historically been mistreated by the police - immigrants, blacks, hispanics, asians, women, poor white people, etc. This myth that all police officers are good... except for one or two bad apples is complete hogwash.

So you are pretty much telling us again that we should not reasonably believe police officers are good. Plus, since I am Asian I will be treated poorly by the police.

'Historically', people were more racist and prejudice against many people and things and yet we are progressing further away since events such as the Civil Rights Movement. The expectation of the police force of doing their job should have always been held to the highest regards. Just because they have been getting away with it 'historically' doesn't change that.

Some police departments are highly corrupt (New Orleans, for example), while others are well known to cross the line of rights violations without outright corruption (New York, Los Angeles). It's not simply a black/white issue, and it annoys me that people treat police as such.

You seem to have made it clear it is black and white for me.

[Simon_Jester]

So you are pretty much telling us again that we should not reasonably believe police officers are good. Plus, since I am Asian I will be treated poorly by the police.

...That makes no sense at all.

Look, like it or not there is a history of the police being used to enforce things that, in hindsight, should not have been enforced. Of things like Southern cops turning firehoses on civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. It happens.

While it is reasonable to assume that individual officers are acting in good faith, it is NOT reasonable to assume that the police are always being used for good, or that whatever they happen to be doing at the moment is precisely what they should be doing. These are not things that can be taken on faith, not for human institutions. People make mistakes, people make bad strategy decisions, people fall prey to the biases and follies of their time.

So like it or not, the image of "POLICE: To the last man, stalwart defenders of all that is good and right!" isn't entirely accurate. There are too many historical examples of that not happening. So we have to make some effort to guard the guardians. Someone has to look at police tactics and policies with a critical eye, count up the costs of those policies, and decide whether or not the public interest is served by applying them.

The whole War on Drugs mess is happening in large part because too few are doing that in American society. Instead we get cops as pigs versus cops as paladins. To few people are looking at the cops as cops: men and women charged with a huge burden of responsibility, given extraordinary powers to carry that burden, and then ordered to enforce whatever laws the state can dream up.

So instead of a debate over whether it is worth it to go hunting for drug dealers using heavily armed teams* given the cost that sometimes the teams kick down the wrong door and sometimes they shoot someone innocent dead... we get "Cops are Nazi pigs and we should be shooting back at them!" versus "Quit badmouthing cops, you loudmouthed idiot!" And there's definitely a black/white fallacy buried in there.

*And yes, I know, only heavily armed teams are likely to be able to make the arrests and seize the evidence safely. That's not my point.

[Soontir C'boath]

Look, like it or not there is a history of the police being used to enforce things that, in hindsight, should not have been enforced. Of things like Southern cops turning firehoses on civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. It happens.

Policy and laws can and have been enacted, repealed, or changed to reflect the ever changing society. I'm not sure why I have to actually state that since I would hope it's obvious.

While it is reasonable to assume that individual officers are acting in good faith, it is NOT reasonable to assume that the police are always being used for good, or that whatever they happen to be doing at the moment is precisely what they should be doing. These are not things that can be taken on faith, not for human institutions.

If you had read my second post, I certainly do not assume police are always there to do good. What I am expecting of the police is to be held accountable and reduce events such as killing a seven year old or as naff as giving undeserved tickets to residents of Bed-Stuy because their bosses are making them do it to make an unwarranted quota that can erode the people's trust in their LEOs.

For the unreasonable laws and policies that they must adhere to, they can be changed.

People make mistakes, people make bad strategy decisions,

Would you agree then that they must be held accountable for their actions?

people fall prey to the biases and follies of their time.

See my first response.

So like it or not, the image of "POLICE: To the last man, stalwart defenders of all that is good and right!" isn't entirely accurate. There are too many historical examples of that not happening. So we have to make some effort to guard the guardians. Someone has to look at police tactics and policies with a critical eye, count up the costs of those policies, and decide whether or not the public interest is served by applying them.

I do not know why you are arguing with me then since this is part of what I expect to be done.

The whole War on Drugs mess is happening in large part because too few are doing that in American society. Instead we get cops as pigs versus cops as paladins. To few people are looking at the cops as cops: men and women charged with a huge burden of responsibility, given extraordinary powers to carry that burden, and then ordered to enforce whatever laws the state can dream up.

So would you agree that part of the problem is a matter of policy that must be changed that could improve the trust of the people in the police force?

So instead of a debate over whether it is worth it to go hunting for drug dealers using heavily armed teams* given the cost that sometimes the teams kick down the wrong door and sometimes they shoot someone innocent dead... we get "Cops are Nazi pigs and we should be shooting back at them!" versus "Quit badmouthing cops, you loudmouthed idiot!" And there's definitely a black/white fallacy buried in there.

So what is the black and white fallacy here?

[Simon_Jester]

If you had read my second post, I certainly do not assume police are always there to do good. What I am expecting of the police is to be held accountable and reduce events such as killing a seven year old or as naff as giving undeserved tickets to residents of Bed-Stuy because their bosses are making them do it to make an unwarranted quota that can erode the people's trust in their LEOs.

For the unreasonable laws and policies that they must adhere to, they can be changed.

Yes... in which case launching counterattacks against all and sundry who oppose abuse of police power is a bad idea. In which case I find it impossible to comprehend why you're going after Sanchez.

Sanchez is saying that, as a matter of reality, Americans have not always been able to depend on the police to do right by them. In some cases the police were being ordered by lawful authority to do wrong by certain Americans. In some they did it on their own initiative, because of the biases of their time.

Either way, it happens, and we need to keep an eye out for it. Which means not trying to smother all criticism of the police in a blanket of "Police are paladins!" Just as having a society that can control crime means not trying to smother all proposed expansions of law enforcement in a blanket of "Police are pigs!"

So like it or not, the image of "POLICE: To the last man, stalwart defenders of all that is good and right!" isn't entirely accurate. There are too many historical examples of that not happening. So we have to make some effort to guard the guardians. Someone has to look at police tactics and policies with a critical eye, count up the costs of those policies, and decide whether or not the public interest is served by applying them.

I do not know why you are arguing with me then since this is part of what I expect to be done.

Because in your reply to Sanchez, you sounded to me as if you were going full out "police are paladins!" The white side of the black/white fallacy. You no longer sound that way to me, but I'm not sure I understand how the same person could have written your most recent reply to me and your most recent reply to Sanchez.

So would you agree that part of the problem is a matter of policy that must be changed that could improve the trust of the people in the police force?

What sane person would not?

So instead of a debate over whether it is worth it to go hunting for drug dealers using heavily armed teams* given the cost that sometimes the teams kick down the wrong door and sometimes they shoot someone innocent dead... we get "Cops are Nazi pigs and we should be shooting back at them!" versus "Quit badmouthing cops, you loudmouthed idiot!" And there's definitely a black/white fallacy buried in there.

So what is the black and white fallacy here?

The notion that:
EITHER police are wonderful and people who criticize them (or even fail to defend them) are criminal-sympathizing idiots,
OR police are terrible and people who defend them (or even fail to criticize them) are mindless guardians of the Thin Blue Line that prevents police reforms, and don't care about civil rights.

That is a black/white fallacy.

Your reply to Sanchez made me believe that you were saying the former- that you were savaging Sanchez for saying that police have often mistreated minorities in American society. Even though that is very much true, is documentable, and has continued well into living memory, to the point where it beggars the imagination that the problem has gone away entirely.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

The fear of reprisal is tied to the lack of trust in the police, I think. If you can't trust that the police will protect you from such reprisal, you're much less likely to talk to them, right? That is something that the police could work harder at, I think.

How would the police go about "working harder" at this, and how much would it cost in either other areas that were then neglected, or in additional funds to have more men and equipment?

The police are already out there on patrol if someone becomes a victim of retaliation and can be summoned. There are nowhere near enough cops, however, to keep an eye on every single person who fears retaliation all the time. Criminals will just wait until that person is uncovered and then make their move, just like they do now. They go after people at perceived moments of vulnerability.



You might luck out sometimes and learn in advance that "the local Crips are going to ambush Smith when he closes his store tonight because he told us they were dealing drugs outside his establishment." and then it's a good idea to show up and arrest the criminals when they make their move (assuming you don't scare them off accidentally) but without that advance warning there's not a lot of ways in which the police can "work harder" at protecting people from retaliation.

I don't have the answers to those questions, and I'm not trying to argue with your points. What I'm saying is that in some places the mentality is that the police just don't care about the people living there, and if you snitch, yeah maybe they'll get the guy, but his buddies will kill you and your family, or the guy himself will when he gets out in a couple of years, and the police will do nothing to stop this.

When the cops have that kind of reputation, you can't expect people cooperate with them.

This is all off the main topic here, though, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yes... in which case launching counterattacks against all and sundry who oppose abuse of police power is a bad idea. In which case I find it impossible to comprehend why you're going after Sanchez. Sanchez is saying that, as a matter of reality, Americans have not always been able to depend on the police to do right by them. In some cases the police were being ordered by lawful authority to do wrong by certain Americans. In some they did it on their own initiative, because of the biases of their time.

I know what he wrote and what he said was that I shouldn't expect the police to uphold truth and justice, and adhere to ethical principles for those other than decent white people.

You make a very good point here - of course this isn't what's been talked about in this thread, but it's still an excellent point. The reality, however, is that the police have NEVER been bastions of truth and justice, except among middle and upper-class white people during the 1940's and 1950's. Ethnic minorities, women, etc., have all be victimized by American police throughout our history, police have always been agents of government, business, or special interests, and the police have always been somewhat outside the law. The expectation that all police adhere to ethical principles, and that they be held to a common standard, is a fairly new expectation.

I don't understand how this is a good argument. I am advocating for the police to move away from such things and improve and apparently you and him are countering by saying it is how it has been.

I have been saying from my second post here in reply to Kamikaze (which I'm not sure you read) that to improve the police's ability and reputation among people including minorities and poor white trash who are victimized that these kind of things must be reduced by actually executing reprimands/demotions, discharges, criminal proceedings, etc on bad officers. If whatever they have done was allowed but not ethical or effective, then the policy regarding it must be change. I acknowledge that what was done is done. It's what happens after is what counts.

Because in your reply to Sanchez, you sounded to me as if you were going full out "police are paladins!" The white side of the black/white fallacy. You no longer sound that way to me, but I'm not sure I understand how the same person could have written your most recent reply to me and your most recent reply to Sanchez.

I have never said they are, I said they should and to reach that point as best as possible.

If I thought they were ultra-awesome people, I would be seriously ignorant of all the goddamn bullshit that has occurred over the years in my own city's police department. I even gave an example with Bed-Stuy (Brooklyn) cops with their boss making them have arrest and ticket quotas to name a few things.

Your reply to Sanchez made me believe that you were saying the former- that you were savaging Sanchez for saying that police have often mistreated minorities in American society. Even though that is very much true, is documentable, and has continued well into living memory, to the point where it beggars the imagination that the problem has gone away entirely.

Right, so what was the problem that I should then come to the conclusion that as an Asian I cannot trust the police because they will not treat me properly?

[obvious]And if I can't, isn't that a serious problem?[/obvious]

[Big Phil]

Soontir... what the fuck are you arguing? If there's a coherent argument in there, and not just nitpicks and strawmen, I can't tell.

[Soontir C'boath]

Soontir... what the fuck are you arguing? If there's a coherent argument in there, and not just nitpicks and strawmen, I can't tell.

Then too bad for you because I have been pretty much repeating the same damn post that I gave to Kamikaze and I have no fucking idea what the fuck you were trying to counter in my reply to Kamikaze in the first place or how it was relevant. All I saw was cops were shit before and shouldn't be expected any better.

The fact that you got lost in your own fucking narrative is not my fault.

[Big Phil]

Soontir... what the fuck are you arguing? If there's a coherent argument in there, and not just nitpicks and strawmen, I can't tell.

Then too bad for you because I have been pretty much repeating the same damn post that I gave to Kamikaze and I have no fucking idea what the fuck you were trying to counter in my reply to Kamikaze in the first place or how it was relevant. All I saw was cops were shit before and shouldn't be expected any better.

The fact that you got lost in your own fucking narrative is not my fault.

You refer to my post as macho chest beating, when it was clear that I was mocking the people in this thread claiming they'd be shooting it out with cops. I have no idea how that's macho chest beating.

Then you get pissy when I point out that it's not black/white, and say that it is, in fact, black/white for you, except that it's not, because I shouldn't say that it is, even though I'm not, because it is. Totally clear, right?

Then an hour ago you say that I wrote that you "shouldn't expect police to uphold truth and justice, and adhere to ethical principles for those other than decent white people." Which again, is a very black/white viewpoint of what I wrote, which is that "it's not simply a black/white issue, and it annoys me that people treat police as such."

You're not communicating clearly, and it's very easy to get lost when someone is communicating in a confusing manner. Instead of bitching at me for having difficulty understanding your posts, perhaps you should post more clearly.

In any case, we're talking past each other while basically saying the same thing; I absolutely agree with you that "to improve the police's ability and reputation among people including minorities and poor white trash who are victimized that these kind of things must be reduced by actually executing reprimands/demotions, discharges, criminal proceedings, etc on bad officers. If whatever they have done was allowed but not ethical or effective, then the policy regarding it must be change."

[Spoonist]

You're not communicating clearly,

I second this. I can't decipher wtf Soontir C'boath is on about or what he is actually trying to advocate for/against.

[Soontir C'boath]

Soontir... what the fuck are you arguing? If there's a coherent argument in there, and not just nitpicks and strawmen, I can't tell.

Then too bad for you because I have been pretty much repeating the same damn post that I gave to Kamikaze and I have no fucking idea what the fuck you were trying to counter in my reply to Kamikaze in the first place or how it was relevant. All I saw was cops were shit before and shouldn't be expected any better. The fact that you got lost in your own fucking narrative is not my fault.

You refer to my post as macho chest beating, when it was clear that I was mocking the people in this thread claiming they'd be shooting it out with cops. I have no idea how that's macho chest beating.

I was saying you were making them out to be macho chest beating by saying they'd shoot out with the cops but I'll drop it as it wasn't the main point I wanted to make here anyway.

Then an hour ago you say that I wrote that you "shouldn't expect police to uphold truth and justice, and adhere to ethical principles for those other than decent white people." Which again, is a very black/white viewpoint of what I wrote, which is that "it's not simply a black/white issue, and it annoys me that people treat police as such."

Bolded mine:

You make a very good point here - of course this isn't what's been talked about in this thread, but it's still an excellent point. The reality, however, is that the police have NEVER been bastions of truth and justice, except among middle and upper-class white people during the 1940's and 1950's. Ethnic minorities, women, etc., have all be victimized by American police throughout our history, police have always been agents of government, business, or special interests, and the police have always been somewhat outside the law. The expectation that all police adhere to ethical principles, and that they be held to a common standard, is a fairly new expectation.

What part of "never" that you even capitalized do you not understand? If they NEVER been a bastion of truth and justice then what am I suppose to conclude except that you are implying that we should not expect it? Perhaps I should've added expecting too highly? Are you saying that when the cops come knocking I shouldn't expect them to hear me out and there's a possibility that they'll kick the shit out of me since I'm Asian?

What I am saying is that I shouldn't have to worry about the police mistreating me because I'm Asian and it should be fixed. I don't know how clearer I can be on that. I really don't.

I second this. I can't decipher wtf Soontir C'boath is on about or what he is actually trying to advocate for/against.

I am for the third or fourth time now advocating that for police to gain our trust so that we don't have people actually thinking about shooting cops (in this thread's case), they have to actually act on things such as police complaints not listened to, the bad officers to actually be demoted/discharge, etc, and to reduce the idea that there is a Blue Wall of Silence. This is all I have pretty much said in regards of my main point in this thread since my reply to Kamikaze. He agreed and Sanchez have.

Any other crap that's been flung around in my opinion has been a huge fucking red herring and probably why none of us know what the fuck is going on.