Police shooting hits 4 bystanders, more details

[Alyeska]

Do you apply this same logic to everyone else? "You have the right to remain silent... but why would you unless you have something to hide?"

Find me an example of the police charging someone for recording the cop doing something perfectly normal and inoffensive. Like say getting a cat out of a tree or kissing a baby. That should be plastered over the headlines.

"Woman charged with felony for video taping cop kissing Baby!"

Though, the Maryland decision linked above seems to make this moot - on duty officers in public have no expectation of privacy, so these laws don't apply to them. It's a matter of arguing this same kind of thing in other states as such charges come up.

Thats one state. Others don't apply those standards.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever as to the point of the law. It seems like some people use them for "contempt of cop", but I've seen nothing to show that was the intent of the legislators.

I admit to having found no evidence to support that position and alter my argument accordingly, and your retort is that I've presented no evidence and continue to argue a point I've already conceded. Congrats.

My organized crime speculation for making the laws still looks far more likely than scaring citizens. The individual charges discussed in this thread are probably bullshit.

Where is the redress for false imprisonment when they charge these people?

[Alyeska]

You seem intent on forcing me to admit a mistake. You are the one who argued a cop is justified in using force to acquire a video when we are discussing a case of a cop who Pointed a Gun to do this. Care to keep arguing that point?.

[Alyeska]

I agree that the officer didn't handle this situation appropriately. There was no need for it here, nor is there a need in the vast majority of cases. Where I disagree is that it is NEVER appropriate to collect evidence at gunpoint.

Collecting evidence. Not stopping an armed robber. You said collecting evidence. The threat of a gun is pointless if it cannot be used. Which means you are arguing that it is justified to shoot someone simply to preserve evidence. No other thing need be involved. Its OK to kill someone just because its easier.

However, I'll concede that there'd necessarily be a lot more steps in there, like a subpoena and warrant, than "see guy taping, point gun at him", even in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Thats not collecting evidence. Thats dealing with an armed suspect. Two different scenarios. They might overlap, but the allowance of lethal force has nothing to do with collecting evidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It isn't just that; all kinds of corporate, personal or restricted information might be on someone's phone. Eventually they'll realise that there are better ways to 'gather evidence' and that it doesn't protect them at all and I guess they'll stop.

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view those details about a piece of evidence does not make it immune to lawful seizure.

[Stark]

When cops gloat about costing people money, it's not surprising people have such an adversarial relationship with the police in your country.

The best part is that this primitive method of acquiring videos for their evidentiary content is so easily surpassed by the police being pro-active with social networking to gather videos consenually. Not in America, I guess?

[Alyeska]

This is beside the point again, but in the bad logic parade from you, we'll add throwing out bluffs in addition to the 5th amendment!

In civilian terms, thats called threatening to shoot someone. Thats a crime for civilians. But apparently its a tool for police to threaten to shoot someone even when they have no justification.

For fucks sake, police departments have procedures that limit the use of a fucking taser let alone a pistol. They can't just brandish the weapon and bluff someone for fun.

They wouldn't be dealing with him at all if not for the need to get the evidence! One thing leads directly to the other. (This is similar to the logic pro-drug people use when the no-knock warrants come up. If the drug laws weren't there, those situations wouldn't exist in the first place. Similarly, if using force to collect evidence was categorically denied, those situations again wouldn't be allowed to exist. If they deem serving a warrant to be dangerous, they'd have to back off, since collecting evidence doesn't justify the guns.)

If you're excluding those situations, that's not realistic, but on the isolated principle, we wouldn't disagree. As it sits, those situations are quite rare, and besides, I'm not even really comfortable with some of the remedies available for contempt of court...

Moving the goal post fallacy. We are discussing the threat or use of lethal force for evidence collection. Stop, end of discussion. The moment you add something else to the mix you concede the issue.

Police may use lethal force to stop me from issuing fraudulent super market coupons. The cops came to stop me from issuing these coupons and I brandished a gun. They shot me dead. One thing leads directly to the other.

You jaywalk across the road. A police officer attempts to site you. You pull a gun and they are forced to shoot you. One thing leads directly to the other. Ergo, lethal force is justified to stop a jaywalker.

THAT is your argument.

[Alyeska]

A bluff is only so good as the person doing the lying. Police procedures for lethal force would damned well be public knowledge. How the fuck does a cop bluff with a gun when its public knowledge when and where he can use it?

So the threat of lethal force is worthless without the ability to back it up. Which means you are arguing that there is a justification to kill someone to stop them interfering with evidence collection.

Because of how absurd this argument is, you've modified your position without actually acknowledging it in an attempt to move the goal posts. You've tacked on a requirement that the individual has to pose an imminent threat without acknowledging this completely changes your argument. There are two separate acts here. Evidence tampering. Threat to police. Now you are trying to combine them to justify lethal force to stop something that has no direct relation to the other.

[SVPD]

Ok.. already too much of a mess to reply individually.

First of all, there are no laws that I know of that make it illegal to record the police. What there are, are 12 states that have 2-party-consent wiretapping laws, and in 3 of those, there were 3 individual cases cited in the Gizmodo article where cops tried to use those laws to arrest people for recording them. The article tries to make it appear that it's a "disturbing trend" but.. it isn't. It's a few anecdotes spun into a trend by a sensationalist. There is no effort on the part of lawmakers or judges to condone this, nor are any police departments with their heads out of their asses pursuing such nonsense.

Second, the phone:

A) If the phone video were to be seized as evidence, that would be perfectly lawful.
B) Pointing a gun at someone simply to get them to give up evidence when lesser means have not even been tried is not appropriate, and should result in disciplinary action
C) Destroying evidence is criminal and should result in termination and prosecution

What we're looking at here is a case of a few wildly-out-of-control police officers, who should be dealt with. I don't see anything that can be generalized any farther. Alyeska is right that the fact that any given enforcement action could conceiveably lead to a deadly force encounter does not mean deadly force can always be used. On the other hand, threatening to use deadly force in order to deter another person from trying to do so in the first place is quite acceptable. That doesn't seem to be the case here, however.

[SVPD]

Given that the technology exists, it should really be mandatory that police wear cameras or microphones at all times, and can't turn off the recorders in their vehicles. This will protect good cops from accusations of abuse, and will provide evidence to prosecute bad cops. It's too bad police tend to circle around in a defensive wagon to defend the bad cops, however.

Frankly, if something liek that is going to be done, the public needs to be much more educated on what video does and doesn't reveal. People have a tendency to think they understand everything about a situation from a video, and don't give a thought to what might have occured before, after, or out of the camera's view. They also fail to understand that the officer may not see what they see from the camera's perspective and even if he did, he only gets one chance to go through the situation in real time. He does not get to sit at his computer replying it and say "daaaaaammmmmmnnnnnn, duuuuude!" over and over before going off to post piously on the internet about how awful/cool it is.

The real problem isn't too much or too little video of the police; it's the fact that it goes straight to YouTube and the court of public opinion where the uninformed conduct a STar Chamber trial with no evidence except the video, often aided by the hystrionics of the media looking for something to fill their 24-hour news cycle. This happens all too often, and then when a case gets into court or a disciplinary hearing and other evidence does arise, the YouTube crowd leaps to the conclusion that anything less than the crucifixtion they were hoping for is some sort of coverup or immunity.

More reasonable people (i.e. most of them) are fair enough not to take such incidents to seriously, but there is a certain subset that has their mind made up, and will take any excuse to confirm their ideas to themselves.

[SVPD]

By the way, no one seems to ahve addressed this little tidbit at the bottom of the MSNBC article:

Update: In a statement, the police department says, it "continues to work with the State Attorney’s office as we investigate the shooting," and that:

... in the course of the investigation, we received reports alleging that police officers confiscated a phone from a civilian bystander in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Any and all video of the incident is crucial to the investigation, and it is not unusual for police to secure any video that may have evidentiary value. Several other phones were also secured during the course of the investigation.

"Contrary to Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media, the cell phone turned over to the Miami Beach Police Department is in working order; the only damage observed to the cell phone is to the lower right portion of the LCD screen and it is unknown when this damage occurred. This damage does not appear consistent with Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media that his phone was "smashed."

The department says it "takes seriously any allegations of police misconduct and urges anyone to report any concerns to the Department’s Internal Affairs Division" at (305) 673-7920.

Perhaps the police were not as out of control as it initially appeared. I also don't see anything in the video or the article that indicates a gun was pointed at the phone owner, or that 4 bystanders were shot. Where were these facts obtained from? If it's merely the word of the guy with the phone.. well, he might not be the first guy to come up with a more interesting version of his interaction with the police.

[Alyeska]

In civilian terms, thats called threatening to shoot someone. Thats a crime for civilians. But apparently its a tool for police to threaten to shoot someone even when they have no justification.

No, it's not. I'm talking about your broken logic skills here, not this specific situation.

You jaywalk across the road. A police officer attempts to site cite you. You pull a gun and they are forced to shoot you. One thing leads directly to the other. Ergo, lethal force is justified to stop a jaywalker.

THAT is your argument.

No, you just inverted your argument. I'm instead contradicting it. (those terms come from my basic math class in grade 9, I'm sure you can find definitions on the internet. TIP: They aren't the same thing.)

What the fuck is wrong with you? You claimed it was perfectly justified to use lethal force (or at least the threat of lethal force) to collect evidence. This whole fucking derailment is you trying to justify that simple fucking concept with convoluted examples. You attempted to justify the use of lethal force to collect evidence by introducing examples of things that have no bearing on the subject.

[Alyeska]

Perhaps the police were not as out of control as it initially appeared. I also don't see anything in the video or the article that indicates a gun was pointed at the phone owner, or that 4 bystanders were shot. Where were these facts obtained from? If it's merely the word of the guy with the phone.. well, he might not be the first guy to come up with a more interesting version of his interaction with the police.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/wp-cont ... 6/nig5.jpg

That looks like pointing a gun at the video taker to me.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Perhaps the police were not as out of control as it initially appeared. I also don't see anything in the video or the article that indicates a gun was pointed at the phone owner,

Check again, its at about 1:58, you can't miss him, white shirt, bicycle helmet, pistol, badge on the left side of his chest.

[Alyeska]

You finally understand the basic logic!

If such a scenario exists, your original statement is wrong. (this is the contradiction concept I mentioned above)

NO SUCH SCENARIO EXISTS. Get that through your thick fucking skull. The scenario you proposed has nothing to do with evidence collection. The police might be there because of that, but it was not the reason the police opened fire and killed the suspect. The police are only able to use or threaten lethal force in very limited circumstances. A suspect that brandishes a weapon or otherwise shows themselves to be an imminent threat. The suspect is threatened, shot, or possibly killed solely on these grounds. Anything else is incidental.

You tacked on "But the evidence collection lead to..." statement. It is intellectualy dishonest. ANY situation could lead to a police shoot out.

Because it changes nothing. If any situation exists, your statement is wrong. It doesn't matter what that situation is. That's the danger of saying "never".

9th grade math.

The situation doesn't fucking exist. Find me a single fucking law or police procedure that says it is OK to kill someone over evidence collection. I fucking dare you.

[Alyeska]

This isn't going to go anywhere though since we have a fundamental disagreement: I consider all the straws on the camel's back to share importance with the one that actually breaks its back. You don't, at least not here. It's not necessarily wrong, but it is definitely incompatible with my approach.

However, I'll concede that there'd necessarily be a lot more steps in there than "see guy taping, point gun at him", even in the most extraordinary circumstances.

You're still trying to side step the argument you've created. You use that to justify that there are situations that allow lethal force in situations that wouldn't allow it. So that brings back my jaywalking argument. According to you its justified to use lethal force because of jaywalking because it was a straw. Its an asinine argument.

[Kamakazie Sith]

When cops gloat about costing people money, it's not surprising people have such an adversarial relationship with the police in your country.

Are you talking about a different thread because I can't find the part where the police were gloating about costing someone money. Furthermore, since when do we here care about public opinion? Shouldn't we care about opinions formed off of substantial fact? I mean if american popular opinion is important to you maybe you should consider the american opinion on intelligent design.

The people in the US have an adversarial relationship with the police in the United States because they get swepted up by sensationalism. Just like they did with Bush, 9/11/01, WMDs, etc. What is truly hilarious to me is when people like you cite public opinion as stupid in one thread and then use it as ammunition in another.

The best part is that this primitive method of acquiring videos for their evidentiary content is so easily surpassed by the police being pro-active with social networking to gather videos consenually. Not in America, I guess?

Are you saying those five stories are enough to conclude that this primitive method is the norm in the United States? What exactly besides US media, TV, and movies do you know of US law enforcement and our procedures?

[SVPD]

Perhaps the police were not as out of control as it initially appeared. I also don't see anything in the video or the article that indicates a gun was pointed at the phone owner, or that 4 bystanders were shot. Where were these facts obtained from? If it's merely the word of the guy with the phone.. well, he might not be the first guy to come up with a more interesting version of his interaction with the police.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/wp-cont ... 6/nig5.jpg

That looks like pointing a gun at the video taker to me.

Actually, it looks a lot like he is pointing the gun at something to the video taker's right.

[SVPD]

"Contrary to Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media, the cell phone turned over to the Miami Beach Police Department is in working order; the only damage observed to the cell phone is to the lower right portion of the LCD screen and it is unknown when this damage occurred. This damage does not appear consistent with Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media that his phone was "smashed."

While I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Mr. Benoit was exaggerating a little to the Internet (come on, who hasn't done it?), playing devil's advocate, I could also believe that damage is consistent with the description, not knowing the mitigating facts.

Think about the physics of the situation: how would he smash it? Maybe dropping it on the road and stomping with his boot?

It's conceivable that such an action would cause very little overall damage, since the force is spread out over the whole thing and/or there may have been grass, dirt, or sand under it to cushion the blow.

The damage in the corner would be caused by an uneven spot in the officer's boot, or a rock on the ground that disproportionately pushed down on one area.


I think exaggeration is more likely, but a flat surface hitting another flat surface without a person's full weight on it might not cause much damage at all. I've abused the crap out of my old cell phone - dropped it on the road at 20 mph, stepped on it, thrown it - and it still looks good as new. Worst that happens to it is the faceplate snaps off, which also snaps right back on.

Of course, that one isn't a fancy big screen thing like most of today's models, so they are maybe more fragile. I don't know.

I'm not prepared to work out the physics of the situation mathematically, but what you're doing seems like "wild speculating about the physics", not "thinking about it. It strikes me as unlikely that a cell phone could withstand a determined stomp from a full-grown man, who would probably stomp it more than once. I simply do not see any reason to think they are that durable. They're clearly right on a city street so I don't think it too likely the officer would have used a sandy, dirty, or grassy spot when there is plenty of concrete to go around.

It seems more likely to me that Benoit is engaging in more than "a little" exaggeration. That does not necessarily make the actions of the police proper, but it seriously calls into question any intent to destroy property or evidence.

[Mr Bean]

I'm not prepared to work out the physics of the situation mathematically, but what you're doing seems like "wild speculating about the physics", not "thinking about it. It strikes me as unlikely that a cell phone could withstand a determined stomp from a full-grown man, who would probably stomp it more than once. I simply do not see any reason to think they are that durable. They're clearly right on a city street so I don't think it too likely the officer would have used a sandy, dirty, or grassy spot when there is plenty of concrete to go around.

It seems more likely to me that Benoit is engaging in more than "a little" exaggeration. That does not necessarily make the actions of the police proper, but it seriously calls into question any intent to destroy property or evidence.

It depends on his cell phone, the more low tech it is the more durable it is. If I stomped on an Iphone or my own Droid X in boots after throwing it on the street it would be smashed to hell, do the same thing to my mom's free basic phone which is 95% bulk plastic and it would survive. Same thing with my old blackberry which I kept in a Tough case(tm) and survived me dropping it down a flight of metal stairs once with only the case being scratched up but the phone okay.

But as you noted, I think we can safely assume that he was not stomping on the phone to improve the quality of evidence.

[Alyeska]

You're still trying to side step the argument you've created.

No, I'm very much on target. We just have a philosophical disagreement. Deal with it.

So do you agree that lethal force is justified in jaywalking?

I hate you.

I love you too sweetie.

[Bakustra]

When cops gloat about costing people money, it's not surprising people have such an adversarial relationship with the police in your country.

Are you talking about a different thread because I can't find the part where the police were gloating about costing someone money. Furthermore, since when do we here care about public opinion? Shouldn't we care about opinions formed off of substantial fact? I mean if american popular opinion is important to you maybe you should consider the american opinion on intelligent design.

The people in the US have an adversarial relationship with the police in the United States because they get swepted up by sensationalism. Just like they did with Bush, 9/11/01, WMDs, etc. What is truly hilarious to me is when people like you cite public opinion as stupid in one thread and then use it as ammunition in another.

Really? There's no reason why people might be suspicious of American police forces beyond sensationalism? You talked about how you couldn't understand why people believe in a "Blue Wall" in several previous threads. Here's why. We see police forces lying about cases where they fucked up massively in order to turn tragedies into triumphs, such that Jose Guerena becomes not an innocent ex-Marine killed while unarmed, but instead a violent psycho who attacked the police after they announced themselves, but somehow didn't remove the safety on his gun. We see this endorsed by the top levels of the departments involved. It sure as hell looks like the Pima County Sheriff's Department is deliberately covering up a deadly mistake it made, and this trend is present across most of the other cases I linked. In other words, why do so many American police forces have such an adversarial relationship with the general population that they feel the need to close ranks around fuckups or make use of legalistic wrangling to keep from denouncing racist officers?

The best part is that this primitive method of acquiring videos for their evidentiary content is so easily surpassed by the police being pro-active with social networking to gather videos consenually. Not in America, I guess?

Are you saying those five stories are enough to conclude that this primitive method is the norm in the United States? What exactly besides US media, TV, and movies do you know of US law enforcement and our procedures?

So what is the norm for collecting videos for potential evidential content, then? For that matter, I'd say that Stark looks like he knows more about law enforcement in the US than you, since you seem to present it as monolithic and it is not (and making it monolithic makes the above cases damning of all officers rather than of general trends, but I doubt you considered that). So let me amend that to "in your department and other departments you have knowledge of?"

[Alyeska]

Alyeska:

Oh hell, one last time I'll spell it out.

Suppose you're a police chief. You have the following facts confirmed to you:

a) It is very probable that a house has important evidence inside to solve an important case. (could be financial records, drugs, a murder weapon; anything)

b) The occupants of that house are armed, 24/7, and have a history of violence and a lot to lose if the evidence comes to light. It's a realistic possibility that they'll fight an attempt to search the house with violence. Assume their weapons are legal - you can't simply arrest them on weapons charges and sidestep the scenario.

I will snip the rest because this addresses the issue right here. This thread started with the discussion about use of lethal force to collect evidence. You said that there are scenarios where you can use lethal force to collect evidence. To justify this you have added a qualifier. They aren't using lethal force because of A, they are using it because of B. Without B, they would not use lethal force. So A does not actually qualify for lethal force.

You have to ADD something to create a scenario to use lethal force.

I will take your very same example and change a single component

a) It is very probable that a house has a history of counterfeit diaper production. (could be financial records, absorbent materials, incomplete diapers; anything)

b) The occupants of that house are armed, 24/7, and have a history of violence and a lot to lose if the evidence comes to light. It's a realistic possibility that they'll fight an attempt to search the house with violence. Assume their weapons are legal - you can't simply arrest them on weapons charges and sidestep the scenario.

So, illegal counterfeit diaper production qualifies lethal force.

Lethal force exists solely because of B. They might show up because of A, but A is not the cause of lethal force. What if the house is a known Catholic Church? Do they go in guns blazing? No. The decision to use lethal force had nothing to do with A and everything to do with B. A was the reason they were there, not the reason they used lethal force. A did not cause B. B is not a consequence of A. They can be related, but that is not a causation. They can be correlated but not directly connected.

The more people eat ice cream the more sex frogs have. Ice cream consumption did not cause the frogs to have sex even though when one increases so does the other. What happens is when the temperature rises people start eating ice cream and frogs get randy in bed. Correlation, not causation.

[Alyeska]

Yeah, more circles.

I admit to having found no evidence to support that position and alter my argument accordingly, and your retort is that I've presented no evidence and continue to argue a point I've already conceded. Congrats.

You have backed down from the initial position? I admit I thought it looked like a goal post move.

Lets make it clear. Here is the original position restated from both of us.

Confiscating cameras and video recording equipment at gunpoint. That is NEVER acceptable.

Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want any of that useless evidence making it's way to trial!

Destroying it isn't cool, but collecting it, even by threat of force if need be, is an important step in making sure the truth is uncovered.

My statement is only to do with collecting of evidence, no other crime. You disagreed with my position. Has this changed?

[Alyeska]

You're a fucking ass. You conceded nothing. So now you are lying in this thread.

[Alyeska]

Someone who advocates lethal force for non-violent police actions. Advocating being the bigger man. Thats a fucking riot.