General Police Abuse Thread

[mr friendly guy]

What is with that "crawl on towards" me order? What happens if the guy slipped because he's scared shitless?

[Zwinmar]

...fucking amateurs allowed to wear a badge. I had more ROE's going into Kosovo to stop an ethnic genocide than this barney fife asshole did apparently.

[Lost Soal]

What is with that "crawl on towards" me order? What happens if the guy slipped because he's scared shitless?

Exactly what you saw apparently. Killed for the crime of losing your balance

[Kamakazie Sith]

...fucking amateurs allowed to wear a badge. I had more ROE's going into Kosovo to stop an ethnic genocide than this barney fife asshole did apparently.

Keep in mind, Zwinmar. He was charged with murder. So, he wasn't within "ROE" at all. Just because an untrained civilian jury acquitted him doesn't mean that he was within the law. All that means is uneducated people can easily be misdirected which is a systemic problem in the US considering we have guys like Alex Jones with serious pull, Trump as president, anti-science nonsense, etc.

What is with that "crawl on towards" me order? What happens if the guy slipped because he's scared shitless?

The orders were so ridiculous it was practically a guarantee that a mistake would be made. It's also not taught in any police training that I've ever attended. In fact, one necessary step that they forgot to do in this instance was have this guy face away from them. This is important so you can allow for instances of people dropping their hands to stop their pants from falling down.

Though if I'm being completely thorough here the most necessary step that none of them seemed to have taken was to be aware of the totality of what was going on at the time. They had a report of a man waving a rifle around. The first people they come into contact with clearly do not have a rifle. No shots have been fired. Nobody has been threatened. At the point that we see in the video it is time to deescalate. It is not time to continue as though you've just cornered the Joker.

[RogueIce]

I would like to see a review of this case, and many others, to evaluate how it was presented and defended. At least that murdering piece of shit Slager got 20 years.

From my understanding, the one doing the shouting and issuing the commands, wasn't the one who actually shot the victim. I suspect that technicality had something to do with it? But that's pure speculation - I don't even know what the defense was, what the prosecutor said, etc.

[Kamakazie Sith]

From my understanding, the one doing the shouting and issuing the commands, wasn't the one who actually shot the victim. I suspect that technicality had something to do with it? But that's pure speculation - I don't even know what the defense was, what the prosecutor said, etc.

Yeah, I read that too. It really doesn't change much though. The orders would be difficult to follow perfectly, even for a sober person.

[Thanas]

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvv3a/shot-by-cops

A very large piece that would be missing a lot more data if I copy/paste it here.

Bottom line: Police shoot way more people than previously thought, survivors often have no remedy, the only thing that seems to be working is strong federal oversight for reforms.


EDIT: Also WTF is this shit?

The Detroit Police Department said it would take up to 3,120 business days and cost at least $77,532 to retrieve records that other departments made available online for free. An official in the Essex County District Attorney’s Office told us that Newark police likely didn’t keep a list of officer-involved shootings so that they could charge reporters fees to retrieve the case files. The Memphis Police Department required a Tennessee resident to file the records request, then asked for $3,300 unless the documents were reviewed in person at police headquarters.

[Thanas]

I also feel kinda vindicated because (shocker) "use of force policies that require cops to de-escalate situations or exhaust other options before deadly force are associated with less police shootings".

[RogueIce]

From my understanding, the one doing the shouting and issuing the commands, wasn't the one who actually shot the victim. I suspect that technicality had something to do with it? But that's pure speculation - I don't even know what the defense was, what the prosecutor said, etc.

Yeah, I read that too. It really doesn't change much though. The orders would be difficult to follow perfectly, even for a sober person.

I won't disagree with that, I'm just wondering if the (legal) technicality comes in that it wasn't the officer who pulled the trigger that created the situation but another, separate officer.

Incidentally, from what I've seen a lot of law officers agree that those commands were, well, fucking stupid. So what would be the protocol in a situation like this, where your partner is basically being an idiot and issuing bad commands? Obviously you'd hope your department's training is better than that, but people are people after all. And how would that difference be between a same-ranking and higher-ranking officer (as this was the latter case) being the idiot of the day?

[Dominus Atheos]

Oriana Lee Farrell and her five children claim that Defendant Elias Montoya, while on duty as a New Mexico state police officer, violated their Fourth Amendment rights when he fired three shots at their minivan as it drove away from officers trying to effect a traffic stop. We hold that the district court should have granted Defendant summary judgment because the shots did not halt the Farrells’ departure and, because they were fleeing, they were not seized at the time Montoya fired his weapon, even if they had a subjective intent to submit to authority.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2216.pdf

That is the finding in a federal court case. It basically says that it was okay that a police officer shot at a van full of children because he missed. According to a federal judge, it only would have violated their rights if they had been hit.

'Merica

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oriana Lee Farrell and her five children claim that Defendant Elias Montoya, while on duty as a New Mexico state police officer, violated their Fourth Amendment rights when he fired three shots at their minivan as it drove away from officers trying to effect a traffic stop. We hold that the district court should have granted Defendant summary judgment because the shots did not halt the Farrells’ departure and, because they were fleeing, they were not seized at the time Montoya fired his weapon, even if they had a subjective intent to submit to authority.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2216.pdf

That is the finding in a federal court case. It basically says that it was okay that a police officer shot at a van full of children because he missed. According to a federal judge, it only would have violated their rights if they had been hit.

'Merica

Under US law, one has to show they have been injured (not just physically) in some way by the action in order to file suit. No injury means no legal standing. That includes 4th amendment violations.

As an example, let's pretend for a moment that I've killed someone and for some unaccountable reason I've hidden the murder weapon (a blood and fingerprint covered knife) in my brother's closet without his knowledge or consent. Police go to my brother's house and intimidate my 13 year old nephew into giving consent to search (which would be, as I read the law, illegal for them to do) the place for cocaine. This is an unlawful search. Say they don't find cocaine but do find the knife and trace it back to me and the murder I committed.

I have no expectation of privacy in my brother's closet if he didn't agree to hide the knife. Ergo, while his fourth amendment rights were violated, mine were not, because I lacked an expectation of privacy. Likewise, I could not sue them for a violation of his fourth amendment rights. Had my nephew stood his ground and called a lawyer (thus being analogous to missed gunshots), the police could not be sued for violating my brother's 4th amendment rights.

[Dominus Atheos]

Try reading the opinion I linked to before talking out of your ass. This has nothing to do with standing.

B. Excessive Force

The Farrells claim that a jury could find that their constitutional rights were violated because Montoya used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he fired his gun at their minivan. The Fourth Amendment applies to “searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[W]ithout a seizure, there can be no claim for excessive use of force.” Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 575 (10th Cir. 2015)

That is not how excessive force works!

[Simon_Jester]

Try reading the opinion I linked to before talking out of your ass. This has nothing to do with standing.

B. Excessive Force

The Farrells claim that a jury could find that their constitutional rights were violated because Montoya used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he fired his gun at their minivan. The Fourth Amendment applies to “searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[W]ithout a seizure, there can be no claim for excessive use of force.” Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 575 (10th Cir. 2015)

That is not how excessive force works!

Prohibitions on excessive force are based in both the Fourth Amendment and the Eighth. The Eighth, because excessive force is a due process violation. The Fourth applies if (for instance) the police use excessive force while attempting to apprehend a suspect, which is applicable here.

I agree that it should be even if the police failed to apprehend the suspect, because being shot at is harm that should give you standing to press charges or sue, whether or not you are hit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Try reading the opinion I linked to before talking out of your ass. This has nothing to do with standing.

B. Excessive Force

The Farrells claim that a jury could find that their constitutional rights were violated because Montoya used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he fired his gun at their minivan. The Fourth Amendment applies to “searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[W]ithout a seizure, there can be no claim for excessive use of force.” Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 575 (10th Cir. 2015)

That is not how excessive force works!

<Snip Image>

You're right. I misread the legal question. Either way, the court is still legally correct. The string of legal logic is fucking ridiculous (I would call it "Logically Valid and Sound, but WTF, how did we get here?"), but it is legally correct given binding precedent.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm a bit unsure on this. It is non-obvious that a failed seizure can't raise constitutional problems.

If the police break into my house without a warrant and trash my property looking for something, and don't find it because it was never there to begin with, does existing precedent state that I have no recourse?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm a bit unsure on this. It is non-obvious that a failed seizure can't raise constitutional problems.

If the police break into my house without a warrant and trash my property looking for something, and don't find it because it was never there to begin with, does existing precedent state that I have no recourse?

In that case, you do, because the search at that point is unconstitutional and violates your rights.

[Highlord Laan]

I'm a bit unsure on this. It is non-obvious that a failed seizure can't raise constitutional problems.

If the police break into my house without a warrant and trash my property looking for something, and don't find it because it was never there to begin with, does existing precedent state that I have no recourse?

In that case, you do, because the search at that point is unconstitutional and violates your rights.

Go ahead and try making that case. See how far it actually gets.

What I find more...amusing, I guess is that cops can shoot at people that pose no threat at all and it's not even considered assault so long as they miss. But if any mere citizen even looks at a gun in the presence of one of the Great and Glorious Righteous Blue Shields Of The People and you'll get mag dumped as every one of them in line of sight loses his shit and suddenly feels threatened, followed by everything being declared fine by the court and the "officers" hailed as heroes by everyone that wants to remain in the PD's good graces.

[Simon_Jester]

See, my thing is that I don't think this is correct as an interpretation of what the law actually says. It doesn't add up.

I'm a bit unsure on this. It is non-obvious that a failed seizure can't raise constitutional problems.

If the police break into my house without a warrant and trash my property looking for something, and don't find it because it was never there to begin with, does existing precedent state that I have no recourse?

In that case, you do, because the search at that point is unconstitutional and violates your rights.

Okay, I see I accidentally created some ambiguity.

A better example: Suppose the police show up without a warrant and spend a whole day banging on my door with battering rams. For some reason, they fail to gain entry to the property, give up, and go away. Yes I know it's silly, but bear with me here.

Clearly, the police screwed up. The fact that their attempt to enter my property failed does not mean that harm caused in the process of the attempt is somehow a non-event or a thing for which I do not have standing to press charges or sue.

Now, it might well be that the correct course of action is to press charges on the grounds that the police basically committed, uh... trespassing/assault/harassment/something. Not to claim that my constitutional rights have been violated. Would that be correct?

[Alyrium Denryle]

See, my thing is that I don't think this is correct as an interpretation of what the law actually says. It doesn't add up.

I'm a bit unsure on this. It is non-obvious that a failed seizure can't raise constitutional problems.

If the police break into my house without a warrant and trash my property looking for something, and don't find it because it was never there to begin with, does existing precedent state that I have no recourse?

In that case, you do, because the search at that point is unconstitutional and violates your rights.

Okay, I see I accidentally created some ambiguity.

A better example: Suppose the police show up without a warrant and spend a whole day banging on my door with battering rams. For some reason, they fail to gain entry to the property, give up, and go away. Yes I know it's silly, but bear with me here.

Clearly, the police screwed up. The fact that their attempt to enter my property failed does not mean that harm caused in the process of the attempt is somehow a non-event or a thing for which I do not have standing to press charges or sue.

Now, it might well be that the correct course of action is to press charges on the grounds that the police basically committed, uh... trespassing/assault/harassment/something. Not to claim that my constitutional rights have been violated. Would that be correct?

Shit, do both.

The problem here stems from Qualified Immunity. Police can get away with a lot of things so long as they are doing so in good faith in their duties as police officers. Now, in that case, they've damaged your property without a warrant, probable cause, or under the exigency exception. So, being unfamiliar with case law on searches, my naive understanding is that Qualified Immunity would not apply and you could sue the shit out of them for all kinds of things.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, now we backtrack this.

I could have sworn that there was a Supreme Court ruling to the effect that deadly force can only be used to stop a fleeing suspect if there is reason to think the suspect poses a danger to life and limb, or some such thing. If the police knew the van was occupied by a mother and three children, and assuming the traffic stop was for any but the most reckless of driving offenses imaginable, it is not credible that they, in good faith, believed that firing guns at the minivan was justified.

Sound good?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Okay, now we backtrack this.

I could have sworn that there was a Supreme Court ruling to the effect that deadly force can only be used to stop a fleeing suspect if there is reason to think the suspect poses a danger to life and limb, or some such thing. If the police knew the van was occupied by a mother and three children, and assuming the traffic stop was for any but the most reckless of driving offenses imaginable, it is not credible that they, in good faith, believed that firing guns at the minivan was justified.

Sound good?

That would make sense. But it might not be the sort of thing one can sue over. Possible criminal matter rather than civil. But I'm not a lawyer, just an unusually well-educated lay person when it comes to that sort of thing.

[Tribble]

The way things are going in the US, police training might as well include a course called "latest screw-ups" with recruits just watching the news and the instructor saying "see what that officer did? Don't do that".

[Kamakazie Sith]

The way things are going in the US, police training might as well include a course called "latest screw-ups" with recruits just watching the news and the instructor saying "see what that officer did? Don't do that".

Our start of shift briefings do actually.

[MKSheppard]

Link

Isn't this what they wanted?

Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence
December 31, 2017

For the third year in a row, Baltimore, Md., has had more than 300 murders, reaching a new record of murders per number of residents in 2017.

Some residents attribute the high murder rate to relaxed police patrols in the city following high-profile cases of police brutality. Officers have backed off in neighborhoods, like the one where Freddie Gray was arrested.

The Rev. Kinji Scott, a pastor in Baltimore who's held positions in local city government, says the opposite needs to happen.

"We wanted the police there," Scott says. "We wanted them engaged in the community. We didn't want them beating the hell out of us, we didn't want that."

He's among activists who are calling for police reform to reduce the violence in Baltimore and several other high-crime cities across the U.S. that he says haven't seen change. That change begins with a conversation between the communities directly involved, Scott says.

"We need the front line police officers and we need the heart of the black community to step to the forefront of this discussion," he says. "And that's when we're going to see a decrease in crime."

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

*******************

Interview Highlights
On the current state of community safety in Baltimore

When you think about young people who are out here facing these economic challenges and are homeless and living places that are uncertain, and you're a parent — you're scared. Not just for yourself really, but for your children.

The average age of a homicidal victim in Baltimore City right now is 31 years old. We had a young man who attended one of the prime high schools, [Baltimore Polytechnic Institute], Jonathan Tobash, and he was 19 years old, he was a Morgan State student. And he was killed on his way to the store. That's the state of Baltimore right now.

On whether the community wanted police to back off after the death of Freddie Gray

No. That represented our progressives, our activists, our liberal journalists, our politicians, but it did not represent the overall community. Because we know for a fact that around the time Freddie Gray was killed, we start to see homicides increase. We had five homicides in that neighborhood while we were protesting.

What I wanted to see happen was that people would be able to trust the relationship with our police department so that they would feel more comfortable. We'd have conversations with the police about crime in their neighborhood because they would feel safer. So we wanted the police there. We wanted them engaged in the community. We didn't want them beating the hell out of us, we didn't want that.

On whether the high murder rate is unique to Baltimore

It's not. I lost my brother in St. Louis in 2004; just lost my cousin in Chicago. No it's not unique, and that's the horrible thing.

Baltimore Police Overhaul Challenged By Murder Crisis
NATIONAL
Baltimore Police Overhaul Challenged By Murder Crisis
On whether Ferguson, the killing of Michael Brown, and the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement has brought change

The primary thrust nationwide is what President Obama wanted to do: focus on building relationships with police departments and major cities where there had been a history of conflict. That hasn't happened. We don't see that. I don't know a city — Baltimore for certain — we've not seen any changes in those relationships. What we have seen is that the police has distanced themselves, and the community has distanced themselves even further. So the divide has really intensified, it hasn't decreased.

And of course we want to delineate the whole culture of bad policing that exists — nobody denies that — but as a result of this, we don't see the level of policing we need in our community to keep the crime down in our cities that we are seeing bleed to death.

On whether he's optimistic for 2018

I am not. Because I look at the conclusion of 2017, these same cities — St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans and Chicago — these same black cities are still bleeding to death and we're still burying young men in these cities.

I'm a preacher, I want to be hopeful, but not as it stands, no. Not until we really have a real conversation with our front line officers in the heart of our black communities that does not involve our people who are "leaders."

We need the front line police officers and we need the heart of the black community to step to the forefront of this discussion. And that's when we're going to see a decrease in crime.

Emma Bowman adapted this story for the Web.

[Simon_Jester]

Link

Isn't this what they wanted?

As noted, it depends on what you mean by "they."

Community residents always want a police force they can trust, and strongly prefer trustworthy police to either "no police" or "vicious abusive bag of dicks police."

The groups who wanted police gone would mostly reduce to young radical idiots who aren't thinking shit through... But the people who want police accountable includes basically everyone.