# Baltimore



## Chouan

There appears to be something seriously wrong with US policing.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/27/baltimore-police-protesters-violence-freddie-gray
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-officers-as-protests-break-out-10208268.html


----------



## Kingstonian

"According to the 2010 Census, 63.7% of the population was Black, 29.6% White, 0.4% American Indian and Alaska Native, 2.3% Asian, 1.8% from some other race and 2.1% of two or more races. 4.2% of Baltimore's population was of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (they may be of any race). Non-Hispanic Whites were 28% of the population."


----------



## SG_67

We don't know yet what happened and if it turns out that the police acted in a criminal manner, then they should be held to account. 

The violent aftermath, however, could have been contained had the City government been more deliberate. Of course, it doesn't help when the mayor states in a press conference that the protesters need "space to destroy" (she actually said that).

Were I a resident of Baltimore, I would seriously think about moving and taking my tax money elsewhere. What upsets me is that due to police misbehavior, they have taken a low level drug dealer and turned him into a martyr. Now my tax dollars will have to go to replacing infrastructure, police vehicles and cleaning up the city. 

There is no "problem" with policing. The problem is government policies that have in effect created generational poverty and virtual ghettos. The War on Poverty launched in the 1960's has failed abysmally and some 50 years later people who had no say in it's creation are both victims of it and paying the cost for it.


----------



## Acct2000

There are way too many people turning up dead for no reason. While I vote Republican more than you would think, I've been victimized by police dishonesty (an accident report where they totally ignored the police parking their car and a drunk driver's car on an unlit road at 2 AM. The scene was totally unlit; neither car had any lights on - - which led to my not seeing it on time. The Policeman lied on the report to protect himself. This city has had a reputation for abusive police for many years.)

It's out there. Too many police tolerate the bad police. There are a lot of good police, but they allow the bad police to do too many dishonest or violent things with impunity. 

I realize they have a tough job; too many get into the "thug" mentality.

There IS a problem with the police. There is also a problem with the social issues that arise from poverty and people who refuse to see the role that personal behavior has in creating this. (Unwed pregnancies; children not encouraged to take school seriously, etc.) 

When we refuse to look at all sides of the problem, we end up with self-serving "solutions" that solve nothing.

While this may have been a minor drug dealer - - 

a. possibly look at the ridiculous drug laws and the damage they do in marking millions of men for life in consigning them to jail and forever after.

b. If the reports about his back being broken and them just throwing him in the car without belting him in are true, how are the police any better than the criminals? Police really need to be better than the criminals and there should be no "buddy system" protecting policemen who are dishonest or are bullies.

just two thoughts. There are many others.

Too many people who get money from or have a personal involvement on the "left/right" wars refuse to see anything that does not help them advance their cause. Our society will fall if we don't stop this.


----------



## tocqueville

1) It's pretty well established by now that US police are too quick to use disproportionate force. Sometimes it's about race, but often it really isn't; it's just bad policing, brutality, etc.
2) Baltimore is a really f-ed up placed, sort of a perfect storm of the sociopathies of post-industrial, post-desegregation America. It is a southern town (the first Union casualty of the war was in Baltimore) that was forced to be part of the north and remained a deeply segregated city (think Apartheid) up until the 1960s, then came riots and de-segregation and the white population fled en masse for the suburbs, which did devastating things to the economy of the city. Then came deindustrialization, which gutted much of the blue-collar jobs. Which also did devastating things to the economy of the city. Then came drugs, crack cocaine, etc., and for a bunch of reasons the city became a heroin town.
3) What's left of working class Baltimore is more or less stuck in a hole. An underclass cut off from the world.
4) I lived in Baltimore for a year, and never before or since did I hear so many racist jokes or complaints about desegregation.

I frankly hate the place and fled to Washington, DC, which is an infinitely nicer town and, I've learned, is much more racially integrated.


----------



## tocqueville

Very good:
https://mic.com/articles/116702/10-images-of-the-baltimore-riots-you-won-t-be-seeing-on-tv

I have friends and family there who tell me the situation wasn't nearly as bad as it seemed on TV. The violence was at a smaller scale and more concentrated geographically. TV, because of the close focus, gave the impression that the whole city was burning.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This is spot on. We don't yet know all the facts, but the cops in Baltimore have already acknowledged wrongdoing in the instant case. They didn't put a seat belt on the guy when they transported him, and the phenomenon of "rough rides" in the Baltimore police department is well established. They also acknowledge that the dead guy should have gotten medical care a lot sooner than he did.

Most cops--the overwhelming percentage--are good. But just a few bad ones can cause incalculable damage. And, frankly, even good cops are to blame, at least in part, because they tolerate bad cops in their midst. That makes things hard on everyone. If good cops wouldn't tolerate bad ones, a lot of these issues wouldn't exist.

I, too, have had experience with bad cops. Fortunately, I'm reasonably intelligent and have access to lawyers. This has proven helpful. If I was not reasonably intelligent, if I did not have access to lawyers and I wasn't a white male, things would have been a lot worse.

I am surprised, SG, at your comments, given that you live in Chicago, where the city has long been plagued by bad, even corrupt, police. And it has cost a the public a ton of money. Earlier this month, before a lawsuit was even filed, the city agreed to pay $5 million to the family of a teenager who was shot 16 times last fall and killed. The city paid up after lawyers saw footage from a dashboard camera that captured the whole thing. And it is not an isolated incident in Chicago, where taxpayers between 2004 and 2014 spent more than a half-billion dollars defending and settling police misconduct cases. Nearly $400 million of that was for damages. The report is here: https://www.bettergov.org/beyond_burge/

Public officials in Chicago tolerate bad cops. Just a week or two ago, the Cook County state's attorney got a well-deserved tongue-lashing from a judge who said that a cop who fired into a crowd and killed someone should have been charged with murder, not manslaughter. The story is here: And how has the system responded? There's a bill now pending in the Illinois legislature that would allow police departments to destroy disciplinary files after four years so that no one can ever know just how bad the bad cops are. This being Illinois, it has a good chance of passing.

The thing is, white people, all too often, applaud policing that unfairly targets minorities and the poor. Consider Phoenix, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio has proven untouchable at the polls and an easy mark in the courtroom. Voters in Phoenix keep reelecting the guy even though subhuman conditions in his jails and misconduct by his deputies has led to millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees and settlements. The county that employs him has seen insurance premiums and deductibles skyrocket because of it. Here's a story that is only the tip of the iceberg: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/maricopa-sheriff-lawsuits-cost-taxpayers-millions/

Now, if I was poor and brown and I saw this kind of stuff going on, I'd conclude that the system is racist and I would never get a fair shake. And when you really look at it, that might not be far from the truth.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> There are way too many people turning up dead for no reason. While I vote Republican more than you would think, I've been victimized by police dishonesty (an accident report where they totally ignored the police parking their car and a drunk driver's car on an unlit road at 2 AM. The scene was totally unlit; neither car had any lights on - - which led to my not seeing it on time. The Policeman lied on the report to protect himself. This city has had a reputation for abusive police for many years.)
> 
> It's out there. Too many police tolerate the bad police. There are a lot of good police, but they allow the bad police to do too many dishonest or violent things with impunity.
> 
> I realize they have a tough job; too many get into the "thug" mentality.
> 
> There IS a problem with the police. There is also a problem with the social issues that arise from poverty and people who refuse to see the role that personal behavior has in creating this. (Unwed pregnancies; children not encouraged to take school seriously, etc.)
> 
> When we refuse to look at all sides of the problem, we end up with self-serving "solutions" that solve nothing.
> 
> While this may have been a minor drug dealer - -
> 
> a. possibly look at the ridiculous drug laws and the damage they do in marking millions of men for life in consigning them to jail and forever after.
> 
> b. If the reports about his back being broken and them just throwing him in the car without belting him in are true, how are the police any better than the criminals? Police really need to be better than the criminals and there should be no "buddy system" protecting policemen who are dishonest or are bullies.
> 
> just two thoughts. There are many others.
> 
> Too many people who get money from or have a personal involvement on the "left/right" wars refuse to see anything that does not help them advance their cause. Our society will fall if we don't stop this.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I am surprised, SG, at your comments, given that you live in Chicago, where the city has long been plagued by bad, even corrupt, police. And it has cost a the public a ton of money. Earlier this month, before a lawsuit was even filed, the city agreed to pay $5 million to the family of a teenager who was shot 16 times last fall and killed. The city paid up after lawyers saw footage from a dashboard camera that captured the whole thing. And it is not an isolated incident in Chicago, where taxpayers between 2004 and 2014 spent more than a half-billion dollars defending and settling police misconduct cases. Nearly $400 million of that was for damages. The report is here: https://www.bettergov.org/beyond_burge/
> 
> Public officials in Chicago tolerate bad cops. Just a week or two ago, the Cook County state's attorney got a well-deserved tongue-lashing from a judge who said that a cop who fired into a crowd and killed someone should have been charged with murder, not manslaughter. The story is here: And how has the system responded? There's a bill now pending in the Illinois legislature that would allow police departments to destroy disciplinary files after four years so that no one can ever know just how bad the bad cops are. This being Illinois, it has a good chance of passing.
> 
> The thing is, white people, all too often, applaud policing that unfairly targets minorities and the poor. Consider Phoenix, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio has proven untouchable at the polls and an easy mark in the courtroom. Voters in Phoenix keep reelecting the guy even though subhuman conditions in his jails and misconduct by his deputies has led to millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees and settlements. The county that employs him has seen insurance premiums and deductibles skyrocket because of it. Here's a story that is only the tip of the iceberg: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/maricopa-sheriff-lawsuits-cost-taxpayers-millions/
> 
> Now, if I was poor and brown and I saw this kind of stuff going on, I'd conclude that the system is racist and I would never get a fair shake. And when you really look at it, that might not be far from the truth.


That's why I'm no longer in Chicago but moved to the burbs. I work in Chicago but I refuse to be part of a tax base fraught with corruption, mismanagement and plane silliness. The breaking point came when the city council voted to ban Foie Gras. This is what was foremost on their minds.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Fair enough. The cost of police misconduct--damages and lawyers--in Chicago suburbs in the past five years surpasses $40 million, with nearly $30 million of that paid out in damages Here's the story: https://www.bettergov.org/not_just_a_chicago_thing/

Now, you may or may not live in one of these communities, but you are, most assuredly, helping pay for it, just as you are helping pay the bill in Chicago, if, in fact, you still do business of any kind--have a job, shop at Brooks Brothers, catch a Cubs game--in that city. And you do work in Chicago, so you absolutely are helping pay for it. Heck, I live 200 miles from Chicago and I'm helping pay for it, as the city, broke, crawls to the state asking for financial breaks that ultimately cost everyone.

And did you really move because of the fois gras vote? Police brutality? I'll live with that and help pay for it. Massive giveaways to business interests? No problem, I'll stay. So many convictions for public corruption no one can keep count? Fine by me, I love the Windy City. Property taxes that rank among the highest in America? No problem-o. A murder rate that would put Yemen to shame? No issue for me. A fois gras ban? This is an abomination! I'm moving! How dare they!

Really? That's what it took?



SG_67 said:


> That's why I'm no longer in Chicago but moved to the burbs. I work in Chicago but I refuse to be part of a tax base fraught with corruption, mismanagement and plane silliness. The breaking point came when the city council voted to ban Foie Gras. This is what was foremost on their minds.


----------



## Acct2000

I wonder how many Cubs fans moved out of Chicago when Steve Bartman did his magic.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I suspect Bartman moved.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> I wonder how many Cubs fans moved out of Chicago when Steve Bartman did his magic.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Fair enough. The cost of police misconduct--damages and lawyers--in Chicago suburbs in the past five years surpasses $40 million, with nearly $30 million of that paid out in damages Here's the story: https://www.bettergov.org/not_just_a_chicago_thing/
> 
> Now, you may or may not live in one of these communities, but you are, most assuredly, helping pay for it, just as you are helping pay the bill in Chicago, if, in fact, you still do business of any kind--have a job, shop at Brooks Brothers, catch a Cubs game--in that city. And you do work in Chicago, so you absolutely are helping pay for it. Heck, I live 200 miles from Chicago and I'm helping pay for it, as the city, broke, crawls to the state asking for financial breaks that ultimately cost everyone.
> 
> And did you really move because of the fois gras vote? Police brutality? I'll live with that and help pay for it. Massive giveaways to business interests? No problem, I'll stay. So many convictions for public corruption no one can keep count? Fine by me, I love the Windy City. Property taxes that rank among the highest in America? No problem-o. A murder rate that would put Yemen to shame? No issue for me. A fois gras ban? This is an abomination! I'm moving! How dare they!
> 
> Really? That's what it took?


This may sound callous but I never was brutalized by the cops and all the killings happened far away from where I lived.

Where I live now we don't have problems so I have ZERO problem with the cops.

As for the foie gras ban, it helped push me over the edge because it represented the height of silliness and pettiness of the city council. Chicago city government, be they appointed or elected, are a collection of morons, entrenched ward bosses, and small minded fools all with a very tribal mentality. The extent some of these alderman would go to to maintain their grip on such a petty position made me realize that most of these folks couldn't make a living in the real world and this is basically all they have.

I'm sure Baltimore is somewhat similar. For all of Chicago's problems, the city still works. It's relatively safe in the areas where it matters.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Which, due respect, is all fairly easy for a white guy with means to say. I think that the Windy City has a lot more serious issues that goose livers to worry about. You're not at all concerned about a half-billion dollars in a decade spent to handle police misconduct cases? Not concerned that they're now trying to pass laws that would allow the cops to shred disciplinary files that, if they were human beings, would not be old enough to know the alphabet?

This, actually, is a matter of self interest for a white guy with means, I think. The thing is, white guys with means are quickly, if not already, being outnumbered by non-white guys, even non-guys, with middling, if any, means. We are reaching a point where the disparity in incomes and opportunity has never been so wide. It can't go on forever. Police brutality like we've seen recently is gasoline on the fire. Ignore it at your peril. But, if we were wise, we would find a way to address this in a productive fashion.



SG_67 said:


> This may sound callous but I never was brutalized by the cops and all the killings happened far away from where I lived.
> 
> Where I live now we don't have problems so I have ZERO problem with the cops.
> 
> As for the foie gras ban, it helped push me over the edge because it represented the height of silliness and pettiness of the city council. Chicago city government, be they appointed or elected, are a collection of morons, entrenched ward bosses, and small minded fools all with a very tribal mentality. The extent some of these alderman would go to to maintain their grip on such a petty position made me realize that most of these folks couldn't make a living in the real world and this is basically all they have.
> 
> I'm sure Baltimore is somewhat similar. For all of Chicago's problems, the city still works. It's relatively safe in the areas where it matters.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> This may sound callous but I never was brutalized by the cops and all the killings happened far away from where I lived.
> 
> Where I live now we don't have problems so I have ZERO problem with the cops.


Then everything's alright, nothing to worry about.....



SG_67 said:


> For all of Chicago's problems, the city still works. It's relatively safe in the areas where it matters.


The areas where it matters being, I assume, where you happen to be?


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Which, due respect, is all fairly easy for a white guy with means to say. I think that the Windy City has a lot more serious issues that goose livers to worry about. You're not at all concerned about a half-billion dollars in a decade spent to handle police misconduct cases? Not concerned that they're now trying to pass laws that would allow the cops to shred disciplinary files that, if they were human beings, would not be old enough to know the alphabet?
> 
> This, actually, is a matter of self interest for a white guy with means, I think. The thing is, white guys with means are quickly, if not already, being outnumbered by non-white guys, even non-guys, with middling, if any, means. We are reaching a point where the disparity in incomes and opportunity has never been so wide. It can't go on forever. Police brutality like we've seen recently is gasoline on the fire. Ignore it at your peril. But, if we were wise, we would find a way to address this in a productive fashion.


Depopulation would solve these issues in one ultra-liberal stroke.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Then everything's alright, nothing to worry about.....
> 
> The areas where it matters being, I assume, where you happen to be?


Take the sum total of police activity in this country and cases like this represent the smallest fraction of a fraction. I'm not suggesting everything in this case was done properly and it should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly.

But it's also ridiculous to suggest that the police are out there looking to harass. This whole episode and its aftermath is representative of a failure of institutions from city government on up.

Here's an interesting question; why has inner city Baltimore decayed to such a degree while other cities have thrived. Why have some cities failed and why have inner cities turned into ghettos while in others the city centers are doing well.

Times Square in Manhattan used to be a sespool filled with hookers, drug dealers and adult movie theaters. Go there now and it's a complete tourist trap. Neighborhoods in Chicago used to be unsafe and for the most part skid row and are now developed and populated by hipsters.

Why have some cities been able to turn things around while others have not? I'm sure in your own country there are cities that have undergone transformation from one economy to the other while some have not been able to keep up.

Baltimore is one of the old, great American cities rich with history. It is the home of Edgar Allen Poe. It has a rich maritime tradition. Why can't it be like its neighbors to the north, like Boston.

As for your other point, the places where it matters meaning the commercial districts where people work and the tourist areas. The violence and shootings in Chicago, I'm sorry to say, are contained primarily, almost exclusively, to African American populated neighborhoods. The bulk of shootings are committed by black men with the resultant violence visited upon other black men. Mostly gang related. Unfortunately the nature of these shootings and the hail of bullets that are fired with the hope that at least one finds its intended victim, innocent children are often shot; they too are black. Black mothers and black families, black businesses and the community as a whole suffers under this.

No one talks about the cops who come to help or save these folks from further violence. Certainly no one riots in the streets when a little girl is shot walking home from school for no other reason than for being in he path of a bullet perhaps intended for someone else.


----------



## Acct2000

I'm white, middle-class and don't live in a slum. What happened to me happened to me.


----------



## tocqueville

Excellent reporting on Baltimore from NPR. One of the more intriguing arguments the piece makes--which I totally agree with--is that in Baltimore's case the problem has a lot more to do with class than race. I'd argue that this is often true in the US. We tend to assume problems are race related when they're really class related, or perhaps it's just that we've become used to talking about race but never class.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/29/402971487/residents-disappointed-at-how-rioters-tore-up-baltimore


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think it is a lot about class, and it goes beyond Baltimore. In Ferguson, there were plenty of white folks at the protests. And it's nothing new. Sublime talked about it nearly 20 years ago:

They said it was for the black man
They said it was for the Mexican
And not for the white man
But if you look at the streets, it wasn't about Rodney King
In this f'ed-up situation and these f'ed-up police
It's about comin' up and stayin' on top​


tocqueville said:


> Excellent reporting on Baltimore from NPR. One of the more intriguing arguments the piece makes--which I totally agree with--is that in Baltimore's case the problem has a lot more to do with class than race. I'd argue that this is often true in the US. We tend to assume problems are race related when they're really class related, or perhaps it's just that we've become used to talking about race but never class.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2015/04/29/402971487/residents-disappointed-at-how-rioters-tore-up-baltimore


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Excellent reporting on Baltimore from NPR. One of the more intriguing arguments the piece makes--which I totally agree with--is that in Baltimore's case the problem has a lot more to do with class than race. I'd argue that this is often true in the US. We tend to assume problems are race related when they're really class related, or perhaps it's just that we've become used to talking about race but never class.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2015/04/29/402971487/residents-disappointed-at-how-rioters-tore-up-baltimore


It's easier to talk about race. "so and so is a racist." Usually that ends the story. It's clean and fits the liberal narrative.

Speaking of class is usually more complicated and people of different races can occupy the same socio-economic strata.

I ask, what is more racist that a concentration of poverty, mostly of a particular race, via social engineering efforts on the part of well meaning liberals. Housing projects, failed schools and rampant crime are the legacy of the 1960's great society.

But that's too complicated and requires real soul searching. Yeah....it's just easier to blame race and to say cops are racist.


----------



## 32rollandrock

It's true that LBJ and, arguably, FDR were key architects of the current welfare state. But there's a powerful argument that conservatives are willing partners, albeit for different reasons.

People mired in the welfare state where schools are lousy and role models are rare and jobs even scarcer tend to be disenfranchised. If they voted, conservatives would be in deep trouble. Among other things, the tax system that currently helps concentrate wealth at the very top of the socio-economic ladder would likely be reformed to the detriment of the wealthy. Look now at what is happening with the minimum wage. People who work fulltime in today's service economy are, rightly, upset that they need food stamps and Section 8 to survive. The minimum wage therefore is likely going to increase dramatically, and already has in some areas, because the working poor represent a political force that the simply poor do not. And so it is in conservatives' best interest to keep people in the welfare system and disenfranchised.

It is no accident that Clinton, of all presidents, took the greatest steps of any president since the New Deal to reform the welfare system. Reagan didn't do squat, nor did either Bush. Nixon, upon the advice of Daniel Moynihan, once considered doing away with food stamps and Medicaid and other welfare programs in favor of simply giving money to the poor, which makes a great deal of sense. It would have saved money for the government while very likely increasing benefits to the poor. But the idea was quickly scuttled, and conservatives hated it even more than liberals. Both sides were ultimately content to continue a broken system which produced positive political results for both sides. Only Clinton was willing to expend political capital to address the issue.



SG_67 said:


> It's easier to talk about race. "so and so is a racist." Usually that ends the story. It's clean and fits the liberal narrative.
> 
> Speaking of class is usually more complicated and people of different races can occupy the same socio-economic strata.
> 
> I ask, what is more racist that a concentration of poverty, mostly of a particular race, via social engineering efforts on the part of well meaning liberals. Housing projects, failed schools and rampant crime are the legacy of the 1960's great society.
> 
> But that's too complicated and requires real soul searching. Yeah....it's just easier to blame race and to say cops are racist.


----------



## SG_67

^ I can't help but to chuckle as most of the areas you indicate as being "mired" in poverty and all it's trappings are typically governed by Democrats and have been so for generations. 

When was the last Dem mayor of Chicago? When was the last time conservatives were running the city council? When was the last time the Cook County Board president was a Republican? When was the last time the Illinois house was run by the GOP? 

Exactly how long has Mike Madigan been running things? 

This is not about Dems and Republicans. It's about failed government policies, which coincidentally seem to be championed mostly by Dems, which have created generational poverty. 

It's not about minimum wage. There are plenty of people on minimum wage who work hard and don't riot. It has nothing to do with the tax code as nearly 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax. 

It has to do with people not having a stake and not having ownership of private property. If they did, they would respect their property and wouldn't destroy it. When one doesn't have skin in the game, this is what happens.


----------



## SG_67

As usual, first reports are usually incomplete. Interesting where this will go. 

Can anyone say, "hands up, don't shoot".


----------



## 32rollandrock

This is true, but the programs that provide the food and housing and medical care are all federal. It's a partnership. Conservatives love the welfare state as much, if not more, than liberals.



SG_67 said:


> ^ *I can't help but to chuckle as most of the areas you indicate as being "mired" in poverty and all it's trappings are typically governed by Democrats and have been so for generations.
> *
> When was the last Dem mayor of Chicago? When was the last time conservatives were running the city council? When was the last time the Cook County Board president was a Republican? When was the last time the Illinois house was run by the GOP?
> 
> Exactly how long has Mike Madigan been running things?
> 
> This is not about Dems and Republicans. It's about failed government policies, which coincidentally seem to be championed mostly by Dems, which have created generational poverty.
> 
> It's not about minimum wage. There are plenty of people on minimum wage who work hard and don't riot. It has nothing to do with the tax code as nearly 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax.
> 
> It has to do with people not having a stake and not having ownership of private property. If they did, they would respect their property and wouldn't destroy it. When one doesn't have skin in the game, this is what happens.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> .........Now, if I was poor and brown and I saw this kind of stuff going on, I'd conclude that the system is racist and I would never get a fair shake. And when you really look at it, that might not be far from the truth.


There are poor communities in every corner of the world. However, not all of them are strongly inclined toward burning their own neighbourhoods to the ground and embarking on looting sprees in the name of 'justice'.


----------



## dr.butcher

Shaver said:


> There are poor communities in every corner of the world. However, not all of them are strongly inclined toward burning their own neighbourhoods to the ground and embarking on looting sprees in the name of 'justice'.


Steady on ol' chap, that's a right of the middle- and upper-classes as well. Don't deny anyone the right to riot.


----------



## Shaver

dr.butcher said:


> Steady on ol' chap, that's a right of the middle- and upper-classes as well. Don't deny anyone the right to riot.


Assuredly I am not, I approve of a spot of healthy anarchy. This is not that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Oh, come now. This is far, far, far from definitive.

First off, the alleged witness couldn't see Gray. Unless I'm missing something, all he heard was Gray banging against the wall of the car. Is it possible that he was in convulsions? Not sure, but I'm not seeing anything here that would rule it out.

Secondly, it's from the cops who relayed it from a prisoner in custody, and that person has not been independently interviewed.

The guy looked limp as heck when he was loaded into the van--of course, he might have gone limp in the fashion of antiwar protestors, but he sure didn't look in any condition to throw himself anywhere.

We're asked here to believe that someone deliberately broke his own neck. Now, that may or may not be. We'll have to find this out. But to throw this up as appropos of anything is, I think, silly.

What we need here is an autopsy report plus reports from all involved officers. I'm not much interested in a leaked document from an unidentified source who never saw anything with his eyes.



SG_67 said:


> As usual, first reports are usually incomplete. Interesting where this will go.
> 
> Can anyone say, "hands up, don't shoot".


----------



## 32rollandrock

Of course no one should burn their own neighborhoods. But if you're not outraged by the stuff that has gone on, you're not paying attention.



Shaver said:


> There are poor communities in every corner of the world. However, not all of them are strongly inclined toward burning their own neighbourhoods to the ground and embarking on looting sprees in the name of 'justice'.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Of course no one should burn their own neighborhoods. But if you're not outraged by the stuff that has gone on, you're not paying attention.


All I am able to discern is the same old same old.

I have witnessed similar events first hand (Chapeltown, Leeds) and the motivation of the participants has scant little to do with event upon which the misbehaviour is allegedly predicated.


----------



## Chouan

_ Originally Posted by *SG_67* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1697750#post1697750
This may sound callous but I never was brutalized by the cops and all the killings happened far away from where I lived.

Where I live now we don't have problems so I have ZERO problem with the cops.

_

Then everything's alright, nothing to worry about.....

_
Originally Posted by *SG_67* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1697750#post1697750
For all of Chicago's problems, the city still works. It's relatively safe in the areas where it matters.

_

The areas where it matters being, I assume, where you happen to be?



SG_67 said:


> As for your other point, the places where it matters meaning the commercial districts where people work and the tourist areas. The violence and shootings in Chicago, I'm sorry to say, are contained primarily, almost exclusively, to African American populated neighborhoods. The bulk of shootings are committed by black men with the resultant violence visited upon other black men. Mostly gang related. Unfortunately the nature of these shootings and the hail of bullets that are fired with the hope that at least one finds its intended victim, innocent children are often shot; they too are black. Black mothers and black families, black businesses and the community as a whole suffers under this.


Again, you seem to be suggesting that as long as the places that matter are alright and are safe, then policing in general, and police violence and corruption in particular, isn't a problem. As long as lethal street violence is only occurring amongst the poor, by the poor underclass and on the poor underclass, then it isn't any more of a problem than bad policing.

"*Moi je suis ravitaille!...Le reste m'est egal"

A loose idiomatic translation is, "Me, I'm alright! The rest I don't care about."*


----------



## 32rollandrock

One thing I'm not clear on is, has an outside law enforcement agency been brought in to investigate the death? This is SOP on several departments whenever someone dies in police custody. I don't know that it has been done in this case, and if not, it is hard to imagine why. Even if the cops did nothing wrong, a lot of people won't accept such a conclusion if the agency investigated itself.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, come now. This is far, far, far from definitive.
> 
> First off, the alleged witness couldn't see Gray. Unless I'm missing something, all he heard was Gray banging against the wall of the car. Is it possible that he was in convulsions? Not sure, but I'm not seeing anything here that would rule it out.
> 
> Secondly, it's from the cops who relayed it from a prisoner in custody, and that person has not been independently interviewed.
> 
> The guy looked limp as heck when he was loaded into the van--of course, he might have gone limp in the fashion of antiwar protestors, but he sure didn't look in any condition to throw himself anywhere.
> 
> We're asked here to believe that someone deliberately broke his own neck. Now, that may or may not be. We'll have to find this out. But to throw this up as appropos of anything is, I think, silly.
> 
> What we need here is an autopsy report plus reports from all involved officers. I'm not much interested in a leaked document from an unidentified source who never saw anything with his eyes.


No one is saying anything about it being definitive, but it's certainly a new element to this story that seems to deepen what actually happened. I have no idea what happened except for the ultimate outcome. The guy is dead. No body cameras so we don't know. He was limp? Perhaps he was properly subdued.

I heard another story, or at least analysis, that indicated a quick review of the GPS records for the police van in question would indicate how fast and/or erratic the driving was in relation to the "rough rides" theory.

I'm merely suggesting that the first draft is hardly ever complete.



Chouan said:


> _ Originally Posted by *SG_67* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1697750#post1697750
> This may sound callous but I never was brutalized by the cops and all the killings happened far away from where I lived.
> 
> Where I live now we don't have problems so I have ZERO problem with the cops.
> 
> _
> 
> Then everything's alright, nothing to worry about.....
> 
> _
> Originally Posted by *SG_67* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1697750#post1697750
> For all of Chicago's problems, the city still works. It's relatively safe in the areas where it matters.
> 
> _
> 
> The areas where it matters being, I assume, where you happen to be?
> 
> Again, you seem to be suggesting that as long as the places that matter are alright and are safe, then policing in general, and police violence and corruption in particular, isn't a problem. As long as lethal street violence is only occurring amongst the poor, by the poor underclass and on the poor underclass, then it isn't any more of a problem than bad policing.
> 
> "*Moi je suis ravitaille!...Le reste m'est egal"
> 
> A loose idiomatic translation is, "Me, I'm alright! The rest I don't care about."*


I'm sure an ocean away it's easy to state that the police are corrupt and criminal and prone to brutalizing the public, but this is far, far from the case. In a country of 350 million people unfortunately things happen. This is hardly an epidemic.

It's also wrong to assume that violence just occurs. Communities make a choice.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> No one is saying anything about it being definitive, but it's certainly a new element to this story that seems to deepen what actually happened. I have no idea what happened except for the ultimate outcome. The guy is dead. No body cameras so we don't know. He was limp? Perhaps he was properly subdued.
> 
> I heard another story, or at least analysis, that indicated a quick review of the GPS records for the police van in question would indicate how fast and/or erratic the driving was in relation to the "rough rides" theory.
> 
> *I'm merely suggesting that the first draft is hardly ever complete*.
> 
> I'm sure an ocean away it's easy to state that the police are corrupt and criminal and prone to brutalizing the public, but this is far, far from the case. In a country of 350 million people unfortunately things happen. This is hardly an epidemic.
> 
> It's also wrong to assume that violence just occurs. Communities make a choice.


I'll submit that the first draft is _never_ complete. Not to blow my own horn, but I withheld judgment on the Michael Brown matter until the conclusion of the grand jury investigation and release of those reports. I will do the same here. No matter what, I think that the Baltimore police have no business conducting this investigation. The Ferguson matter was investigated by an outside agency, and the same thing should be happening here.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This is worth considering: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

A form of the same law exists in Illinois, and it is instructive to read transcripts of interrogations of accused officers. They have union lawyers by their side, and the law allows them to request "reasonable" breaks in questioning. I have seen examples of breaks being requested, and being granted, when the proverbial noose starts to close, breaks that would never be given to civilian suspects. The law also specifically forbids interviewers from using profanity. It's illegal to use a polygraph when an officer is accused of wrongdoing, even if the lie detector is used only to determine discipline, not whether charges should be filed. The list goes on and on. Polygraph aside, the laws are essentially a laundry list of techniques routinely used in questioning of civilian suspects with corresponding bans on same if the accused is a cop. I once spoke with a police chief who ran a department in Texas, which doesn't have such a law. He was familiar with such statutes, however, and said that such laws make it tough, if not impossible, to rid a department of bad apples.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I'll submit that the first draft is _never_ complete. Not to blow my own horn, but I withheld judgment on the Michael Brown matter until the conclusion of the grand jury investigation and release of those reports. I will do the same here. No matter what, I think that the Baltimore police have no business conducting this investigation. The Ferguson matter was investigated by an outside agency, and the same thing should be happening here.


I have no problem with this - or any other death in custody - being reviewed by an external agency, but let's not assume that just because it is external that it is, by definition, impartial.

One of the worst things by products of the civil rights era was the filing of federal civil rights violations when an non-politically correct verdict was rendered. Just like almost everything, these started out as well intentioned and with narrow scope and then were horribly abused by political functionaries.

As to this specific case, I would urge everyone to wait for the facts to come out. Too many people - especially in the media - are trying to rush to judgment based on innuendo and hearsay.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Turns out that the Department of Justice is investigating whether there was a violation of civil rights, which seems par for the course these days.

This said, totally agree that an external investigation for possible criminal charges isn't necessarily impartial, but it is still better than an agency investigating itself. Of course we should wait for the results before drawing conclusions.



vpkozel said:


> I have no problem with this - or any other death in custody - being reviewed by an external agency, but let's not assume that just because it is external that it is, by definition, impartial.
> 
> One of the worst things by products of the civil rights era was the filing of federal civil rights violations when an non-politically correct verdict was rendered. Just like almost everything, these started out as well intentioned and with narrow scope and then were horribly abused by political functionaries.
> 
> As to this specific case, I would urge everyone to wait for the facts to come out. Too many people - especially in the media - are trying to rush to judgment based on innuendo and hearsay.


----------



## Acct2000

The Department of Justice did decline to prosecute the police office in Michael Brown's case. (I was surprised given the politics of the current administration and the complete lack of concern for fairness shown by BOTH extremes of the political spectrum these days.)


----------



## 32rollandrock

I wasn't overly surprised. No prosecution was warranted. There was less of a case than in the Trayvon Martin matter, where there were no witnesses and no forensics and so no charges should have been filed there, either. In the Michael Brown case, there were both witnesses who said the cop didn't do anything wrong and forensics. Still, Robert McCulloch, the prosecutor who handled the Brown matter, should have stepped aside and let someone else handle it. Had he done so, there might not have been as much uproar as there was, although it is impossible to prove a negative. If they could have found a prosecutor who had widespread credibility in the community, preferably an African American, that person could have dispensed with the grand jury, announced that no charges would be filed, explained the rationale for the decision and released all of the records. Instead, it dragged on for much longer than it should have, which allowed inertia toward violent protest to build. McCulloch was forced to go to a grand jury because too many people don't trust him to act objectively when it comes to police misconduct and killings.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> The Department of Justice did decline to prosecute the police office in Michael Brown's case. (I was surprised given the politics of the current administration and the complete lack of concern for fairness shown by BOTH extremes of the political spectrum these days.)


----------



## Shaver

White Liberal Guilt


----------



## Gurdon

Gurdon


----------



## Acct2000

Hopefully this isn't a rush to judgement. 

I'm not sure the police committed murder; it does look like that at best, they handled the situation callously and carelessly.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think we all need to wait to see how this plays out. But one thing seems curious.

Why did they arrest him in the first place? The alleged illegal knife that was the basis for the arrest wasn't illegal. Surely the cops knew this. He had been arrested 18 times for fairly minor stuff but had no outstanding warrants. From what we know so far, he ran after making eye contact with a police officer, and the cops then pursued. I'm guessing that the cops might have known him on sight. But, once they apprehended him, searched him and found nothing illegal, why didn't they let him go? Of course, we also don't know why he ran, but, to me, that seems immaterial. The cops have a right to chase someone who flees unprovoked--that's what the courts have said. But, when the chase ends and there is no contraband found, it seems to me that the cops should let the person go--it's a matter of common sense as much as anything else. He was not accused of unlawfully fleeing police.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Hopefully this isn't a rush to judgement.
> 
> I'm not sure the police committed murder; it does look like that at best handled the situation callously and carelessly.


----------



## Pentheos

32rollandrock said:


> I think we all need to wait to see how this plays out. But one thing seems curious.
> 
> Why did they arrest him in the first place? The alleged illegal knife that was the basis for the arrest wasn't illegal. Surely the cops knew this. He had been arrested 18 times for fairly minor stuff but had no outstanding warrants. From what we know so far, he ran after making eye contact with a police officer, and the cops then pursued. I'm guessing that the cops might have known him on sight. But, once they apprehended him, searched him and found nothing illegal, why didn't they let him go? Of course, we also don't know why he ran, but, to me, that seems immaterial. The cops have a right to chase someone who flees unprovoked--that's what the courts have said. But, when the chase ends and there is no contraband found, it seems to me that the cops should let the person go--it's a matter of common sense as much as anything else. He was not accused of unlawfully fleeing police.


I've wondered the same thing. Why was he is custody? I've looked for an answer but haven't found one online. Is leading the police on a chase sufficient reason? It could be seen as resisting arrest. Or, since he was a known drug dealer, perhaps they were taking him in for a cavity search?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Seems to me that it was just plain poor policing. Arresting people who haven't broken the law isn't a good way to build community relations. It reeks of we-arrest-people-because-we-can.



Pentheos said:


> I've wondered the same thing. Why was he is custody? I've looked for an answer but haven't found one online. Is leading the police on a chase sufficient reason? It could be seen as resisting arrest. Or, since he was a known drug dealer, perhaps they were taking him in for a cavity search?


----------



## SG_67

Yes of course, everything in Baltimore is going to be fine now.

All the city's ills were the result of bad policing and poor community relations. Why didn't someone find the solution sooner?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Bad policing is not, of course, the sole source of Baltimore's ills, but it does not help matters and there is no excuse. If you think that arresting people who aren't breaking the law is OK, perhaps you should move to China or some other nation where this sort of thing is tolerated.



SG_67 said:


> Yes of course, everything in Baltimore is going to be fine now.
> 
> All the city's ills were the result of bad policing and poor community relations. Why didn't someone find the solution sooner?


----------



## SG_67

^ Do we know that he wasn't breaking the law? Do we know what the arrest was made for? If you have some indication of this that's been reported (not speculation, but actual fact), please share.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ Do we know that he wasn't breaking the law? Do we know what the arrest was made for? If you have some indication of this that's been reported (not speculation, but actual fact), please share.


He was arrested for possession of an illegal knife. The prosecutor has said, categorically, that the knife in question (which had apparently been described by police as a switchblade) was not illegal. It's a fairly bright line, I think: The knife was illegal or it was not. And if it was not illegal, then he should not have been arrested. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that experienced street officers assigned to this area would not know the difference between an illegal knife and a legal one.

Here are more details: https://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2015/04/freddie_grays_death_in_police.php

And I'll go one further than this. Officers have discretion. They can choose to write a speeding ticket or they let you off with a warning. I'm not sure that hauling someone to jail who wasn't threatening anyone or in possession of drugs or otherwise engaged in illegal behavior is a wise use of resources. Again, I'll go with the prosecutor here, who says that the knife wasn't illegal. But, even if the knife was illegal, I think that confiscating it and sending Mr. Gray on his way with a summons might have been the wiser course of action. I'm sure that you will disagree. But, in my experience, the best cops are those who do what's wise, not necessarily those who say "Well, the law allows me to do this, and so I will, even though it's stupid."


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> He was arrested for possession of an illegal knife. The prosecutor has said, categorically, that the knife in question (which had apparently been described by police as a switchblade) was not illegal. It's a fairly bright line, I think: The knife was illegal or it was not. And if it was not illegal, then he should not have been arrested. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that experienced street officers assigned to this area would not know the difference between an illegal knife and a legal one.
> 
> Here are more details: https://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2015/04/freddie_grays_death_in_police.php
> 
> And I'll go one further than this. Officers have discretion. They can choose to write a speeding ticket or they let you off with a warning. I'm not sure that hauling someone to jail who wasn't threatening anyone or in possession of drugs or otherwise engaged in illegal behavior is a wise use of resources. Again, I'll go with the prosecutor here, who says that the knife wasn't illegal. But, even if the knife was illegal, I think that confiscating it and sending Mr. Gray on his way with a summons might have been the wiser course of action. I'm sure that you will disagree. But, in my experience, the best cops are those who do what's wise, not necessarily those who say "Well, the law allows me to do this, and so I will, even though it's stupid."


None of this matters though, and isn't a problem, unless people in prosperous middle class areas have to put up with such behaviour; _*then*_ it's a problem.


----------



## SG_67

^ you say that as though people are randomly assigned to living in certain areas. 

Apparently Mr. Gray was quite well known to the police.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ you say that as though people are randomly assigned to living in certain areas.
> 
> Apparently Mr. Gray was quite well known to the police.


Of course he was well known to police. He'd been arrested 18 times. What difference does that make? This isn't a scene from Casablanca where cops are tasked with rounding up the usual suspects.

Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with a long criminal record if he isn't breaking the law?


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ you say that as though people are randomly assigned to living in certain areas.


No, I say that because you've already stated that if you live in an affluent area policing isn't a problem. Your view, as you appear to present it, is that poor policing in poor areas isn't a problem, because you don't live in a poor area.


----------



## SG_67

^ Poor policing? It's easy to think of it that way because it's convenient and fits an already existing narrative. In short, it doesn't require much analysis.

Baltimore is a crime ridden city, period! 
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/m...imore-no-5-in-murder-rate-20141110-story.html

High crime rate = increased police activity. With increased police activity comes incidents like this. Yes it would have been better were Mr. Gray still alive. I honestly have no idea if he was arrested for suspicion of criminal activity or as 32RR suggests, just a round up of the usual suspects. I suppose an investigation will have to bear that out.

These are tough areas requiring tough policing. Unfortunately things like this will happen, though I really wish they wouldn't.

I wouldn't call what goes on in Baltimore poor policing. The police have a tough job to do and they are doing it as well as can be expected.

Like I said, long after the media leaves, murder and crime in Baltimore will continue. I'm afraid they will continue with renewed fervor as now the criminal element feels empowered by a police force that will be less prone to exert itself. Woe to the residents of Baltimore!


----------



## Jae iLL

No crime was committed at the time of Freddie Gray's arrest. We definitely do have a problem of poor policing in Baltimore, and I think it's mostly due to the nature of policing in general. Only in the police force can you make 60-70k yearly with no education. Giving uneducated people a weapon and having them interact with the community focusing on numbers arrests leads to these incidents. Our draconian drug laws also contribute to the mess. Those officers were charged because they acted in accordance with their training, so we also have a leadership problem. If the patrol officers, Sgt, and Lt are criminally accountable, the department that created them should be as well. A lot needs to change in this city.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Do you think it's acceptable to arrest someone with a long criminal record if he isn't breaking the law?





Jae iLL said:


> No crime was committed at the time of Freddie Gray's arrest.


According to the USSC, there was a crime committed when he ran.

"But courts have set a different standard for places where street crime is common, ruling that police can chase, stop and frisk people if their location contributes to a suspicion of criminal activity."


----------



## Shaver

Jae iLL said:


> No crime was committed at the time of Freddie Gray's arrest. We definitely do have a problem of poor policing in Baltimore, and I think it's mostly due to the nature of policing in general. Only in the police force can you make 60-70k yearly with no education. Giving uneducated people a weapon and having them interact with the community focusing on numbers arrests leads to these incidents. Our draconian drug laws also contribute to the mess. Those officers were charged because they acted in accordance with their training, so we also have a leadership problem. If the patrol officers, Sgt, and Lt are criminally accountable, the department that created them should be as well. A lot needs to change in this city.


I imagine that the lesson here is this: should one find oneself to be a compulsive criminal, a drug dealing parole violator, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, then running from the police - _*if* you are not engaged in illegal activity_ - is likely not the brightest thing you might do on any given day........


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> No, I say that because you've already stated that if you live in an affluent area policing isn't a problem. Your view, as you appear to present it, is that poor policing in poor areas isn't a problem, because you don't live in a poor area.


Yep. It is all the fault of the police. If they were just nicer these folks in the non-affluent areas wouldn't commit crimes, have great educations, and all be very well behaved.

Stupid police......


----------



## SG_67

Jae iLL said:


> No crime was committed at the time of Freddie Gray's arrest. We definitely do have a problem of poor policing in Baltimore, and I think it's mostly due to the nature of policing in general. Only in the police force can you make 60-70k yearly with no education. Giving uneducated people a weapon and having them interact with the community focusing on numbers arrests leads to these incidents. Our draconian drug laws also contribute to the mess. Those officers were charged because they acted in accordance with their training, so we also have a leadership problem. If the patrol officers, Sgt, and Lt are criminally accountable, the department that created them should be as well. A lot needs to change in this city.


That's an absolutely ridiculous statement and one that smacks of elitism.

Perhaps if Freddy Gray and other street criminals were college educated things might have played out differently? Of course they may actually have had jobs which would make this all moot.

Again, the proof will be in the pudding. Let's see what crime statistics in Baltimore look like a year from now.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The Supreme Court ruled that police can chase someone who runs spontaneously, but running, in and of itself, is not a crime. They can chase, stop and frisk someone who flees, but if the frisk reveals nothing illegal, there is no grounds for an arrest. Keep in mind here, no officer told Mr. Gray to stop. He ran upon eye contact. That is hardly an order to stop. We can't know what was in Mr. Gray's mind. Perhaps he was homophobic and felt something untoward in the officer's gaze. Who knows?

But, at the end of the day, no one told Mr. Gray to remain where he was. He ran without a word being exchanged between himself and police. If it had been otherwise, the cops surely would have added "fleeing and eluding police" to the bogus illegal knife charge.



vpkozel said:


> According to the USSC, there was a crime committed when he ran.
> 
> "But courts have set a different standard for places where street crime is common, ruling that police can chase, stop and frisk people if their location contributes to a suspicion of criminal activity."


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The Supreme Court ruled that police can chase someone who runs spontaneously, but running, in and of itself, is not a crime. They can chase, stop and frisk someone who flees, but if the frisk reveals nothing illegal, there is no grounds for an arrest. Keep in mind here, no officer told Mr. Gray to stop. He ran upon eye contact. That is hardly an order to stop. We can't know what was in Mr. Gray's mind. Perhaps he was homophobic and felt something untoward in the officer's gaze. Who knows?
> 
> But, at the end of the day, no one told Mr. Gray to remain where he was. He ran without a word being exchanged between himself and police. If it had been otherwise, the cops surely would have added "fleeing and eluding police" to the bogus illegal knife charge.


From the article.

There are limits to this leeway: The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly required police to have some justification for stopping or questioning someone in a public place. But several legal experts say that because he was standing in a drug-infested area, Gray's decision to bolt on April 12 may have justified the decision by four bicycle-riding officers to pursue *and detain him.*


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> That's an absolutely ridiculous statement and one that smacks of elitism.
> 
> Perhaps if Freddy Gray and other street criminals were college educated things might have played out differently? Of course they may actually have had jobs which would make this all moot.
> 
> Again, the proof will be in the pudding. Let's see what crime statistics in Baltimore look like a year from now.


If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that Freddie Gray had it coming because he has a criminal record, therefore the cops had the right to arrest him, regardless of whether he was doing anything illegal. Why don't we, then, establish police patrols in every large American city with a crime problem, equip them with large paddy wagons, and then sweep the streets, with the cops picking up everyone they think is a crook regardless of whether there is any proof? Wait a minute. They tried something pretty close to that in Phoenix, where the sheriff is now facing jail for violating the civil rights of brown people whom his deputies rounded up and arrested simply because they fit a profile.


----------



## 32rollandrock

"Detain" has a different meaning under the law than "arrest." Completely different. And, keep in mind, they not only handcuffed and shackled him, they also wrote down a booking charge, illegal knife possession. That's not detaining someone, that's arresting them.

Here's the pertinent part of the linked article:

The differences between a detention and an arrest are important because your rights change drastically from one to the other. In a detention, the police only need _reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone. Reasonable suspicion means that there were objectively reasonable circumstances to suspect that the detained individual was involved in, or was about to be involved in a crime.

Here's a link to the article: https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm

_


vpkozel said:


> From the article.
> 
> There are limits to this leeway: The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly required police to have some justification for stopping or questioning someone in a public place. But several legal experts say that because he was standing in a drug-infested area, Gray's decision to bolt on April 12 may have justified the decision by four bicycle-riding officers to pursue *and detain him.*


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> The Supreme Court ruled that police can chase someone who runs spontaneously, but running, in and of itself, is not a crime. They can chase, stop and frisk someone who flees, but if the frisk reveals nothing illegal, there is no grounds for an arrest. Keep in mind here, no officer told Mr. Gray to stop. He ran upon eye contact. That is hardly an order to stop. *We can't know what was in Mr. Gray's mind. Perhaps he was homophobic and felt something untoward in the officer's gaze. Who knows?*
> 
> But, at the end of the day, no one told Mr. Gray to remain where he was. He ran without a word being exchanged between himself and police. If it had been otherwise, the cops surely would have added "fleeing and eluding police" to the bogus illegal knife charge.


We are scraping the bottom of the barrel here somewhat, as far as excuses go? :rolleyes2:


----------



## 32rollandrock

No. I'm just sayin'

Another possibility would be, the cops in the past had beaten and tortured Mr. Gray and he was afraid that it would happen again. If he lived in Chicago, where the city has paid out more than $400 million to settle police misconduct claims in the past ten years and where it was proven that cops have tortured suspects into making false confessions, that would be a legitimate fear. I don't know about Baltimore, where the concept of "rough rides" seems to be in common parlance.

I'm just sayin'



Shaver said:


> We are scraping the bottom of the barrel here somewhat, as far as excuses go? :rolleyes2:


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> "Detain" has a different meaning under the law than "arrest." Completely different. And, keep in mind, they not only handcuffed and shackled him, they also wrote down a booking charge, illegal knife possession. That's not detaining someone, that's arresting them.
> 
> Here's the pertinent part of the linked article:
> 
> The differences between a detention and an arrest are important because your rights change drastically from one to the other. In a detention, the police only need _reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone. Reasonable suspicion means that there were objectively reasonable circumstances to suspect that the detained individual was involved in, or was about to be involved in a crime.
> 
> Here's a link to the article: https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm
> 
> _


Here is an interesting article I initially found while checking to see if Gray was on probation - which drastically changes the rules. I have not found that answer, but this does raise some very interesting points. Specifically about the legality of the knife under *Baltimore *law. He also gives a very good explanation about why you can reasonably make a mistake while arresting someone and not do anything wrong.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/...e-why-is-prosecutor-claiming-unlawful-arrest/


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> No. I'm just sayin'
> 
> Another possibility would be, the cops in the past had beaten and tortured Mr. Gray and he was afraid that it would happen again. If he lived in Chicago, where the city has paid out more than $400 million to settle police misconduct claims in the past ten years and where it was proven that cops have tortured suspects into making false confessions, that would be a legitimate fear. I don't know about Baltimore, where the concept of "rough rides" seems to be in common parlance.
> 
> I'm just sayin'


$400 million spread over 10 years? $40 mil a year? For a city the size of Chicago? With its crime rate? With most of them probably settled for ease and the number most likely influenced by a few large settlements of egregious cases? That really doesn't seem like that much honestly.

It would be much more impactful if you had a breakdown of the amounts.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that Freddie Gray had it coming because he has a criminal record, therefore the cops had the right to arrest him, regardless of whether he was doing anything illegal.


No. You're saying that. Stop making straw man arguments. Is there a report that indicates he was doing nothing and that the arrest was unwarranted? I'm genuinely curious. He did run. He may have resisted or become combative. We don't know. If there was body cam video evidence that sure would be helpful in this case.



> Why don't we, then, establish police patrols in every large American city with a crime problem, equip them with large paddy wagons, and then sweep the streets, with the cops picking up everyone they think is a crook regardless of whether there is any proof? Wait a minute. They tried something pretty close to that in Phoenix, where the sheriff is now facing jail for violating the civil rights of brown people whom his deputies rounded up and arrested simply because they fit a profile.


Sheriff Arpaio faces contempt charges. He's not "facing jail time for violating the civil rights" of anyone. If the Sheriff's office truly profiled then that's a violation of civil rights. Let's see how it plays out.

To extract that to assume every time a person of color or minority is arrested, that profiling is at the heart of it is ludicrous. Baltimore is a majority African American city. The majority of violent crimes and drug crimes are committed by, and against, African Americans. This is not conjecture, it's fact. You can make a separate argument about drug laws and minimum sentencing guidelines but for the time it is still illegal.

With the numbers being what they are, is it any surprise that African Americans are subject to more arrest in Baltimore than whites/others (using current demographic parlance)?

I said it before and I'll say it again. For those berating the police and calling it poor policing, for those suggesting that the police are too stupid to be cops because they lack a college education (and as indicated above, maybe making too much money?), let's see how things play out in the coming year.

For those dancing in the streets, will they be able to turn their neighborhoods around. Sadly, I predict that the crime rate in Baltimore will only rise in the coming year. A year from now, criminal gangs will still be selling drugs and enforcing their own brand of justice. Young black men will still be murdered by other young black men. The breakdown of the basic family unit within African-American communities will still continue. Baltimore city government will continue to fail it's constituents through a series of failed liberal policies and poor leadership.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> $400 million spread over 10 years? $40 mil a year? For a city the size of Chicago? With its crime rate? With most of them probably settled for ease and the number most likely influenced by a few large settlements of egregious cases? That really doesn't seem like that much honestly.
> 
> It would be much more impactful if you had a breakdown of the amounts.


Often times the city settles these things because it's cheaper and politically expedient. I have a feeling that were body cameras in use everywhere, we would see a dramatic drop alleged police misconduct cases.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> No. I'm just sayin'
> 
> Another possibility would be, the cops in the past had beaten and tortured Mr. Gray and he was afraid that it would happen again. If he lived in Chicago, where the city has paid out more than $400 million to settle police misconduct claims in the past ten years and where it was proven that cops have tortured suspects into making false confessions, that would be a legitimate fear. I don't know about Baltimore, where the concept of "rough rides" seems to be in common parlance.
> 
> I'm just sayin'


Not afraid enough to consider another occupation that did not involve the supply of narcotics though, eh?


----------



## 32rollandrock

OK, you've got me. Arpaio is facing time for contempt. And what's the basis? Because he violated a court order compelling him to stop rounding up brown people on the suspicion that they are in this country illegally. I really think you're splitting hairs, though. Due respect, but it doesn't sound as if you know much about the case. A court absolutely did rule that he was profiling. That was the basis of the court order that he's now accused of violating. That part of the case has played out: A court has found that Arpaio systemically violated the rights of minorities. Again, you might do well to read up on the case.

As for Gray, we have documents from police stating that he was arrested for possession of an illegal knife. We have the statute that defines an illegal knife. We have the knife itself. We have the prosecutor, who presumably knows the law, saying that the knife was not illegal. Perhaps I'm missing something, but what's not clear to you?

The problem with the let's-see-how-this-plays-out line you are espousing is that you are espousing it in cases, such as Arpaio, that have already played out. When do we stop saying "let's see how this plays out" and say, yep, there's something wrong here? Now, I agree that we need to wait for more facts in Freddie Gray, but in the Ferguson case, it has played out and when it did, you refused to read the Department of Justice report that contained the facts and evaluation of same. I think that's a bit disingenuous.

Let's try this: Can you think of any case--any case at all--in the United States in, say, the last 30 years in which the police have wrongfully killed or injured someone? I would be interested if you could name just one case.

As for your predictions, why would you say such things? The crime rate in the United States is at an all-time low. On what basis would you predict an increase in crime in Baltimore? Do you live there? Do you know anyone who lives there? Where are you getting your information from?



SG_67 said:


> No. You're saying that. Stop making straw man arguments. Is there a report that indicates he was doing nothing and that the arrest was unwarranted? I'm genuinely curious. He did run. He may have resisted or become combative. We don't know. If there was body cam video evidence that sure would be helpful in this case.
> 
> Sheriff Arpaio faces contempt charges. He's not "facing jail time for violating the civil rights" of anyone. If the Sheriff's office truly profiled then that's a violation of civil rights. Let's see how it plays out.
> 
> To extract that to assume every time a person of color or minority is arrested, that profiling is at the heart of it is ludicrous. Baltimore is a majority African American city. The majority of violent crimes and drug crimes are committed by, and against, African Americans. This is not conjecture, it's fact. You can make a separate argument about drug laws and minimum sentencing guidelines but for the time it is still illegal.
> 
> With the numbers being what they are, is it any surprise that African Americans are subject to more arrest in Baltimore than whites/others (using current demographic parlance)?
> 
> I said it before and I'll say it again. For those berating the police and calling it poor policing, for those suggesting that the police are too stupid to be cops because they lack a college education (and as indicated above, maybe making too much money?), let's see how things play out in the coming year.
> 
> For those dancing in the streets, will they be able to turn their neighborhoods around. Sadly, I predict that the crime rate in Baltimore will only rise in the coming year. A year from now, criminal gangs will still be selling drugs and enforcing their own brand of justice. Young black men will still be murdered by other young black men. The breakdown of the basic family unit within African-American communities will still continue. Baltimore city government will continue to fail it's constituents through a series of failed liberal policies and poor leadership.


----------



## 32rollandrock

My lord. You can't be serious.

You're talking about a city where it has been proven that police tortured innocent people into giving false confessions in murder cases that resulted in them being sent to prison for years. In case you don't read newspapers, google "Commander Burge." You're talking about a city where, in the past month, a judge in open court exorciated the state's attorney for improperly charging a cop with manslaughter when murder was the obvious charge. Was all this politically motivated? Some sort of grand conspiracy cooked up in secret Internet forums open only to liberals and people of color.

A half-billion dollars in ten years (that includes legal fees). I'll say it again: a half-billion dollars spent on police misconduct. And you don't see an issue.

My lord.

Frankly, I could easily say that if there were body cameras, the number of police misconduct cases would skyrocket, and the statement would be equally valid. You may not realize this, but police misconduct cases are extraordinarily difficult to win for the person who complains. That's not just in Chicago, but everywhere. If you do not know or understand or acknowledge this, then, I am sorry, but you haven't done your homework and are making statements in the absence of knowledge and facts.



SG_67 said:


> Often times the city settles these things because it's cheaper and politically expedient. I have a feeling that were body cameras in use everywhere, we would see a dramatic drop alleged police misconduct cases.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Shaver said:


> Not afraid enough to consider another occupation that did not involve the supply of narcotics though, eh?


Did he have narcotics on his person? Nope. So what's your point?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> As for Gray, we have documents from police stating that he was arrested for possession of an illegal knife. We have the statute that defines an illegal knife. We have the knife itself. We have the prosecutor, who presumably knows the law, saying that the knife was not illegal. Perhaps I'm missing something, but what's not clear to you?


Apparently this is not so clear cut as you seem to believe. Also, can we go ahead and stop pretending that the prosecutor is operating in a political vacuum? If she is found to be wrong on the facts, I don't thin kyou will find the usual suspects screaming as loudly as they are screaming about Grey being falsely detained.



> Let's try this: Can you think of any case--any case at all--in the United States in, say, the last 30 years in which the police have wrongfully killed or injured someone? I would be interested if you could name just one case.


Rodney King would be the most prominent example.


----------



## 32rollandrock

What does the crime rate have to do with the amount of money spent to address bad cops?

The breakdowns you seek are available with a bit of googling, but I have googled enough this morning. Do your homework. Don't just say stuff because it sounds good or fits within a certain ideology. Get some facts, then draw conclusions.



vpkozel said:


> $400 million spread over 10 years? $40 mil a year? For a city the size of Chicago? With its crime rate? With most of them probably settled for ease and the number most likely influenced by a few large settlements of egregious cases? That really doesn't seem like that much honestly.
> 
> It would be much more impactful if you had a breakdown of the amounts.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Apparently this is not so clear cut as you seem to believe. Also, can we go ahead and stop pretending that the prosecutor is operating in a political vacuum? If she is found to be wrong on the facts, I don't thin kyou will find the usual suspects screaming as loudly as they are screaming about Grey being falsely detained.
> 
> Rodney King would be the most prominent example.


OK, we're getting somewhere. What happened to the cops who were tried on criminal charges in the King case?

And I still fail to see what's not clear cut in the knife case. Is there anything I stated that is inaccurate? If so, what is it?


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Did he have narcotics on his person? Nope. So what's your point?


Discarded while running. Probably.

My point is explicit - if he was (as you allege) scared of the police then he would have ceased his criminal activities. He did not ergo he was not.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> What does the crime rate have to do with the amount of money spent to address bad cops?
> 
> The breakdowns you seek are available with a bit of googling, but I have googled enough this morning. Do your homework. Don't just say stuff because it sounds good or fits within a certain ideology. Get some facts, then draw conclusions.


What does crime rate have to do with the number of interactions with the police? And how would that influence the number of lawsuits based on police interactions? Jeez, I have no idea what the correlation there could be.....

I didn't bring it up, you did. You throw out $400 million over 10 years (which I will bet is a talking point that sounds good or fits a certain ideology) then when I point that out, then break it down a bit more so that it doe not look quite so incendiary you decide it is my job to disprove your point as opposed to you making it.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> OK, we're getting somewhere. What happened to the cops who were tried on criminal charges in the King case?


They were found not guilty. By a jury. After a trial.



> And I still fail to see what's not clear cut in the knife case. Is there anything I stated that is inaccurate? If so, what is it?


I have pointed it out multiple times with links to back it up. The knife was spring assisted. Spring assisted knives are illegal in *Baltimore

*


----------



## 32rollandrock

It's math. No matter how you cut it, $400 million (and that's just money paid to people who said that the cops screwed up) is a lot of freaking money. Quit pretending that it is not.

And I still don't get the correlation. You seem to be suggesting that police should be allowed to mistreat people if they suspect, even rightly, that these people are criminals. If you believe that, then you might do well to move to China or perhaps Russia.



vpkozel said:


> What does crime rate have to do with the number of interactions with the police? And how would that influence the number of lawsuits based on police interactions? Jeez, I have no idea what the correlation there could be.....
> 
> I didn't bring it up, you did. You throw out $400 million over 10 years (which I will bet is a talking point that sounds good or fits a certain ideology) then when I point that out, then break it down a bit more so that it doe not look quite so incendiary you decide it is my job to disprove your point as opposed to you making it.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> They were found not guilty. By a jury. After a trial.
> 
> I have pointed it out multiple times with links to back it up. The knife was spring assisted. Spring assisted knives are illegal in *Baltimore
> 
> *


Have you seen the knife in question? Do you live in Baltimore? Or do you simply believe everything the cops and conservative media says and automatically dismiss anything to the contrary?

We agree on something. The cops were acquitted. I presume you saw the video. Do you think that the jury got it right?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> It's math. No matter how you cut it, $400 million (and that's just money paid to people who said that the cops screwed up) is a lot of freaking money. Quit pretending that it is not.


Of course it is a lot of money. But where do you think it ranks on the amount of money spent each year by Chicago (using the $40 million annual amount of course)? Probably not very high.



> And I still don't get the correlation. You seem to be suggesting that police should be allowed to mistreat people if they suspect, even rightly, that these people are criminals. If you believe that, then you might do well to move to China or perhaps Russia.


Good Lord. But at least you didn't accuse me of saying that they should be able to mistreat only minorities. Little victories I guess......

The correlations are obvious. The more chances you have to make a mistake, the more mistakes will be made - even if the defect rate is very low.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Shaver said:


> Discarded while running. Probably.
> 
> My point is explicit - if he was (as you allege) scared of the police then he would have ceased his criminal activities. He did not ergo he was not.


Ah, so we should arrest people based on what we think that they probably did. Kind of like the Central Scrutinizer in the old Frank Zappa song who enforces laws that haven't been passed yet.

And what criminal activities, precisely, did he not cease that led to this?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Instead of asking me to do the math, why don't you do it? Again, we're talking $400 million in payouts and more than $100 million in legal expenses to handle the cases. So let's call it $500 million. Since you're the one saying it's not worth sneezing about, you prove it. You have access to a computer. Show me that it's not very much money in the scheme of things.



vpkozel said:


> Of course it is a lot of money. But where do you think it ranks on the amount of money spent each year by Chicago (using the $40 million annual amount of course)? Probably not very high.
> 
> Good Lord. But at least you didn't accuse me of saying that they should be able to mistreat only minorities. Little victories I guess......
> 
> The correlations are obvious. The more chances you have to make a mistake, the more mistakes will be made - even if the defect rate is very low.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Ah, so we should arrest people based on what we think that they probably did. Kind of like the Central Scrutinizer in the old Frank Zappa song who enforces laws that haven't been passed yet.
> 
> And what criminal activities, precisely, did he not cease that led to this?


32rnr my friend we are going round in circles, as my previous comment

_"I imagine that the lesson here is this: __should __one find oneself to be a compulsive criminal, a drug dealing parole violator, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, then running from the police - *if* you are not engaged in illegal activity - __is likely not the brightest thing you might do on any given day........__"_


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Have you seen the knife in question?


Have you?



> Do you live in Baltimore?


Do you?



> Or do you simply believe everything the cops and conservative media says and automatically dismiss anything to the contrary?


LOL. That as no bearing on what the law in Baltimore is. Or do you dispute the link I provided?



> We agree on something. The cops were acquitted. I presume you saw the video. Do you think that the jury got it right?


It doesn't matter what I saw. It matters what the jury was allowed to see. I wasn't on the jury.

I assume that you do realize that certain things are excluded from being admitted as testimony.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Instead of asking me to do the math, why don't you do it? Again, we're talking $400 million in payouts and more than $100 million in legal expenses to handle the cases. So let's call it $500 million. Since you're the one saying it's not worth sneezing about, you prove it. You have access to a computer. Show me that it's not very much money in the scheme of things.


I didn't make this claim.



32rollandrock said:


> No. I'm just sayin'
> 
> Another possibility would be, the cops in the past had beaten and tortured Mr. Gray and he was afraid that it would happen again. If he lived in Chicago, where the city has paid out more than $400 million to settle police misconduct claims in the past ten years and where it was proven that cops have tortured suspects into making false confessions, that would be a legitimate fear. I don't know about Baltimore, where the concept of "rough rides" seems to be in common parlance.
> 
> I'm just sayin'


So far, we have your word on things with no breakdown. And if you are going to make such claims, I would think that you should expect questions.

You know, kind of like you have done when I post things that are at odds with your world view.


----------



## vpkozel

Just for the sake of argument I did take a quick look at Chicago's budget for last year. It was $7,402,555,000. $40,000,000 would be .54%. 

So, I will go out on a limb and definitely say that based on these numbers, the amount Chicago spends on police abuse cases is not a large percentage of its budget.....


----------



## 32rollandrock

If you look through this thread, you will find a link to story published in 2014 by the Better Government Association (based in Chicago) that states Chicago spent $500 million over ten years on police misconduct cases (this includes $100 million on expenses and $400 million in payouts). The figures in the story have not been disputed. I say that's a lot of money. You say that it is not. $500 million at the end of the day is $500 million. Few would disagree that this is a lot of money. And yet you disagree, without providing any reasoning as to why you don't think that this is a lot of money.

As for Rodney King, you didn't answer the question: Do you agree with the jury? And not to throw gasoline on a fire, but do you agree with the jury in the OJ Simpson murder case?

If you agree with both verdicts, simply say so. If you disagree with both verdicts, simply say so. If you agree with one but not the other, simply say so.

These are two of the most publicized cases in the history of American jurisprudence. It's OK to have an opinion. Really, it is. And there is plenty of factual information out there on which to form an educated opinion.



vpkozel said:


> I didn't make this claim.
> 
> So far, we have your word on things with no breakdown. And if you are going to make such claims, I would think that you should expect questions.
> 
> You know, kind of like you have done when I post things that are at odds with your world view.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I disagree. A half-percent of a city's budget is a scandalously large amount to be spending on police brutality. This is my opinion. You are entitled to yours.



vpkozel said:


> Just for the sake of argument I did take a quick look at Chicago's budget for last year. It was $7,402,555,000. $40,000,000 would be .54%.
> 
> So, I will go out on a limb and definitely say that based on these numbers, the amount Chicago spends on police abuse cases is not a large percentage of its budget.....


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I disagree. A half-percent of a city's budget is a scandalously large amount to be spending on police brutality. This is my opinion. You are entitled to yours.


But that is not what I said. What I said was that .54% of a budget is not a large amount of that budget. But feel free to spin it if you like.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> If you look through this thread, you will find a link to story published in 2014 by the Better Government Association (based in Chicago) that states Chicago spent $500 million over ten years on police misconduct cases (this includes $100 million on expenses and $400 million in payouts). The figures in the story have not been disputed. I say that's a lot of money. You say that it is not. $500 million at the end of the day is $500 million. Few would disagree that this is a lot of money. And yet you disagree, without providing any reasoning as to why you don't think that this is a lot of money.


Saying that $50 million is a lot of money must be put it context, but of course you know this.



> As for Rodney King, you didn't answer the question: Do you agree with the jury? And not to throw gasoline on a fire, but do you agree with the jury in the OJ Simpson murder case?
> 
> If you agree with both verdicts, simply say so. If you disagree with both verdicts, simply say so. If you agree with one but not the other, simply say so.
> 
> These are two of the most publicized cases in the history of American jurisprudence. It's OK to have an opinion. Really, it is. And there is plenty of factual information out there on which to form an educated opinion.


And the answer is that I don't know because I don't know what they saw. It really isn't that hard to understand.

If memory serves, the jury in the King verdict did not see the tape, but I am not sure about that. As for OJ, I was in Prague at the time, but based on what I understand the jury heard, I think that the verdict was the correct one.

How about you - what are your opinions?


----------



## vpkozel

But now that we have gotten some worthless minutiae out of the way, could you please address the legality of a switchblade under Baltimore law?


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> My lord. You can't be serious.
> 
> You're talking about a city where it has been proven that police tortured innocent people into giving false confessions in murder cases that resulted in them being sent to prison for years. In case you don't read newspapers, google "Commander Burge." .


Not "police" or "the police". A police officer. Let's stop with the hyperbole.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Saying that $50 million is a lot of money must be put it context, but of course you know this.
> 
> And the answer is that I don't know because I don't know what they saw. It really isn't that hard to understand.
> 
> If memory serves, the jury in the King verdict did not see the tape, but I am not sure about that. As for OJ, I was in Prague at the time, but based on what I understand the jury heard, I think that the verdict was the correct one.
> 
> How about you - what are your opinions?


OJ jury got it wrong, but wasn't necessarily the jury's fault. That case was botched by prosecutors. Vincent Bugliosi did the definitive critique.

King jury got it wrong. As in the Simpson trial, there was an inexplicable, I think, change of venue that put the case in the hands of an all-white jury from Simi Valley, which made it that much tougher to make the case against the cops (and it is always tough to make a case against a cop). In the OJ case, the change of venue put it downtown instead of Santa Monica. In both cases, the excuse was pre-trial publicity, which seems ridiculous. There wasn't a corner of this country where these cases hadn't been covered by the media in great detail.

The King jury did see the video, accompanied by testimony from a prosecution expert who testified that the tiniest twitch of a toe justified additional baton strikes. Unfortunately, Tasers weren't around, which may have helped things. Still, I think that this is a case where the overkill seems obvious from a common-sense perspective. From a police policy perspective, most of the baton strikes were, arguably, justified by policy, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. And we should remember that the officers were convicted in federal court on charges of violating King's civil rights.

At some point, I think, you have to look at these cases from a common-sense perspective. Most cops I know will say that the cops were wrong in beating Rodney King, and that acknowledgement has grown more common with the passage of years. You can't look at that video and reasonably conclude that the cops were right. At some point, it boils down to, who are you going to believe, a bunch of lawyers and hired-gun experts or your lying eyes?

Similarly, in the OJ case, there was a trail of blood that led from the crime scene to OJ's house. OJ had cuts on his hand that he couldn't explain. There was blood in OJ's Bronco, although that evidence was never put before a jury, likely because the expert who found it has a less than sterling reputation. OJ owned the same make and model and size of shoe that left bloody footprints and lied about owning them. The gloves? A huge prosecutorial blunder. Never ask a question in front of a jury unless you already know the answer. And, of course, OJ had been violent toward his wife in the past to the point where she feared for her life. If the case had been handled by competent prosecutors, OJ would have landed in jail long before he finally did. The ultimate insult, of course, is that the lawyers who botched the case, Marcia Clark being the case in chief, went on to become hired television experts on the courts. I wouldn't hire Marcia Clark to get me out of a parking ticket. It just goes to show that in America, celebrity is more important than competence.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Not "police" or "the police". A police officer. Let's stop with the hyperbole.


Burge didn't act alone. There was a reason they called it The Midnight Crew. And it's not an exception. Cops almost always know when other cops do bad things, and if they don't speak up to stop it, then I think that they are culpable. Ever heard of Abner Louima?


----------



## SG_67

^ When you use terms like "police" you're indicting an entire department and profession. The Burge case was decades ago, as was Abner Louima. 

Imagine if we held communities to the same standard and just because their happen to be a majority of murders on the south side of Chicago, that all people, we'll call them southsiders, are criminal, gang members and killers.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Of course not all cops are bad. Of course, most cops are good. But there are way, way too many cases of cops remaining silent when they know comrades have done wrong. In Chicago, we have CPD officers who last summer played "Sweet Home Alabama" on a squad car loudspeaker while escorting peaceful protestors concerned about police brutality. They did it in front of God and everyone, but it took a complaint by a bystander who captured it on a smartphone before something was done. In my opinion, every one of those cops who was present and did not report it should have been fired.

Also, in Chicago, we have the case of the city recently paying $5 million to the family of Laquan McDonald, who was gunned down in October by a cop who fired 16 times. At least four other cops were present. The payment was made after city lawyers saw a videotape which has not yet been made public. No cops have been disciplined. It will be interesting to see what they said in their reports.

Once--just once--I would like to see a police union official somewhere stand up and condemn the unjustifiable actions of rogue cops. But it never, ever happens. Instead, when someone gets shot in the back or someone gets beaten or someone gets tortured, we either get silence or silly statements reminding us that cops have dangerous jobs (duh) or, more likely, statements of support. It's happening now in Baltimore. Before the facts are known, police union officials are rallying behind the accused officers. They don't know the facts of the case any more than anyone else does, and so they should, at the very least, hold their tongues.



SG_67 said:


> ^ When you use terms like "police" you're indicting an entire department and profession. The Burge case was decades ago, as was Abner Louima.
> 
> Imagine if we held communities to the same standard and just because their happen to be a majority of murders on the south side of Chicago, that all people, we'll call them southsiders, are criminal, gang members and killers.


----------



## Jae iLL

vpkozel said:


> But now that we have gotten some worthless minutiae out of the way, could you please address the legality of a switchblade under Baltimore law?


A switchblade in the state of Maryland is illegal, however, Freddie Gray had on his possession a folding knife which is classified as a penknife in Maryland and not illegal. Thus, the arrest itself was illegal because no crime was committed.


----------



## vpkozel

Jae iLL said:


> A switchblade in the state of Maryland is illegal, however, Freddie Gray had on his possession a folding knife which is classified as a penknife in Maryland and not illegal. Thus, the arrest itself was illegal because no crime was committed.


Not according to this picture of the police report. And we aren't talking about Maryland law, we are talking about Baltimore city law, which is apparently more stringent.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freddie_gray_complaint-600.jpg


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> OJ jury got it wrong, but wasn't necessarily the jury's fault. That case was botched by prosecutors. Vincent Bugliosi did the definitive critique.
> 
> King jury got it wrong. As in the Simpson trial, there was an inexplicable, I think, change of venue that put the case in the hands of an all-white jury from Simi Valley, which made it that much tougher to make the case against the cops (and it is always tough to make a case against a cop). In the OJ case, the change of venue put it downtown instead of Santa Monica. In both cases, the excuse was pre-trial publicity, which seems ridiculous. There wasn't a corner of this country where these cases hadn't been covered by the media in great detail.
> 
> The King jury did see the video, accompanied by testimony from a prosecution expert who testified that the tiniest twitch of a toe justified additional baton strikes. Unfortunately, Tasers weren't around, which may have helped things. Still, I think that this is a case where the overkill seems obvious from a common-sense perspective. From a police policy perspective, most of the baton strikes were, arguably, justified by policy, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. And we should remember that the officers were convicted in federal court on charges of violating King's civil rights.
> 
> At some point, I think, you have to look at these cases from a common-sense perspective. Most cops I know will say that the cops were wrong in beating Rodney King, and that acknowledgement has grown more common with the passage of years. You can't look at that video and reasonably conclude that the cops were right. At some point, it boils down to, who are you going to believe, a bunch of lawyers and hired-gun experts or your lying eyes?
> 
> Similarly, in the OJ case, there was a trail of blood that led from the crime scene to OJ's house. OJ had cuts on his hand that he couldn't explain. There was blood in OJ's Bronco, although that evidence was never put before a jury, likely because the expert who found it has a less than sterling reputation. OJ owned the same make and model and size of shoe that left bloody footprints and lied about owning them. The gloves? A huge prosecutorial blunder. Never ask a question in front of a jury unless you already know the answer. And, of course, OJ had been violent toward his wife in the past to the point where she feared for her life. If the case had been handled by competent prosecutors, OJ would have landed in jail long before he finally did. The ultimate insult, of course, is that the lawyers who botched the case, Marcia Clark being the case in chief, went on to become hired television experts on the courts. I wouldn't hire Marcia Clark to get me out of a parking ticket. It just goes to show that in America, celebrity is more important than competence.


In other news just as relevant to the Freddie Grey case, it was -91 F in Vostok, Antarctica today, which is warmer than it was yesterday.


----------



## Jae iLL

vpkozel said:


> Not according to this picture of the police report. And we aren't talking about Maryland law, we are talking about Baltimore city law, which is apparently more stringent.
> 
> https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freddie_gray_complaint-600.jpg


In the city of Baltimore it is legal to carry a folding knife, which is considered a penknife. There are no size limitations to this and they can be conceal carried.

According to the statement made by Ms. Crosby, who I am assuming read all of the reports sent to her office by police, Freddie Gray was in possession of a folding knife and not a switchblade.


----------



## vpkozel

Jae iLL said:


> In the city of Baltimore it is legal to carry a folding knife, which is considered a penknife. There are no size limitations to this and they can be conceal carried.
> 
> According to the statement made by Ms. Crosby, who I am assuming read all of the reports sent to her office by police, Freddie Gray was in possession of a folding knife and not a switchblade.


That police report says it was a switchblade. Do you have a link to the statement to which you refer?


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> That police report says it was a switchblade. Do you have a link to the statement to which you refer?


https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/...e-why-is-prosecutor-claiming-unlawful-arrest/

Sounds like trying to identify a particular type of knife is a bit tricky.


----------



## 32rollandrock

No one has seen the knife aside from the cops and prosecutors, and so I think that relying on secondhand media reports and police reports that may or may not be straight up isn't very helpful. We need to see the knife, which no one has, and compare that physical evidence to the statute. Until proven otherwise, I'm going to believe the prosecutor here, who has, presumably, seen the knife and knows the law. The rest is so much schmizz schmack. This said, at the end of the day, was it a wise use of public resources to throw someone in jail for possession of a knife that no one can seem to agree, at least at this point, was legal or illegal? No criminal activity was taking place. I say that they should have confiscated the knife, given the guy a summons and cut him loose. That's common sense. He had been arrested a ton of times, yes, but was, by all appearances, not violent. And so why go through all this rigormarole? To prove we're cops and and have the power? If he was everything the police apologists say, he would have gotten hung up on a more righteous, provable case before long. Instead, we have a dead guy and a city aflame whilst we debate the finer points of cutlery.

Ridiculous.



vpkozel said:


> Not according to this picture of the police report. And we aren't talking about Maryland law, we are talking about Baltimore city law, which is apparently more stringent.
> 
> https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freddie_gray_complaint-600.jpg


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> No one has seen the knife aside from the cops and prosecutors, and so I think that relying on secondhand media reports and police reports that may or may not be straight up isn't very helpful. We need to see the knife, which no one has, and compare that physical evidence to the statute. Until proven otherwise, I'm going to believe the prosecutor here, who has, presumably, seen the knife and knows the law. The rest is so much schmizz schmack. This said, at the end of the day, was it a wise use of public resources to throw someone in jail for possession of a knife that no one can seem to agree, at least at this point, was legal or illegal? No criminal activity was taking place. I say that they should have confiscated the knife, given the guy a summons and cut him loose. That's common sense. He had been arrested a ton of times, yes, but was, by all appearances, not violent. And so why go through all this rigormarole? To prove we're cops and and have the power? If he was everything the police apologists say, he would have gotten hung up on a more righteous, provable case before long. Instead, we have a dead guy and a city aflame whilst we debate the finer points of cutlery.
> 
> Ridiculous.


Did you see the police report? It clearly said it was a switchblade. And none of this even touches on whether or not he was on probation.

Or the inconvenient fact that he ran.

As for the rest, this is beginning to sound like the "hands up" didn't need to be factual stuff.

Edit - he apparently had 2 assault charges.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Did you see the police report? It clearly said it was a switchblade. And none of this even touches on whether or not he was on probation.
> 
> Or the inconvenient fact that he ran.
> 
> As for the rest, this is beginning to sound like the "hands up" didn't need to be factual stuff.
> 
> Edit - he apparently had 2 assault charges.


I haven't seen the police report and neither have you. It has not been publicly released. The prosecutor has seen it and has also, presumably, seen the knife. The prosecutor should know the law. At this point, I don't much care whether the police report labeled it a switchblade or a butterfly knife or a throwing star or something from the Swiss Army that includes four types of screwdrivers and a corkscrew. We will, presumably, find out eventually. Until we do, why should we simply accept the word of the cops over the prosecutor?

What difference does it make whether he was on probation? Had he skipped a court date? Apparently not--otherwise, he would, presumably, have a warrant out and so been arrested for that. He was not. He had no active warrants. We've already established that it is not illegal to run from the cops. Why are we re-plowing this ground?

And where are you getting this information that he had two assault charges? According to Fox News, hardly a bastion of liberals, he had no history of violence. Here's the story:

So far as we know, his criminal history included possession of pot, possession of other drugs, lying to cops and stealing some stuff. I'm only going by what Fox News has reported. No history of violence.

This contention that people are making stuff up, as you contend, the "hands up" line is, frankly, controverted by the facts as we know them to this point. It seems that people hell bent on defending the cops in the absence of facts are making things up--he had two assault charges, he had a swtichblade, maybe he was on probation and so that makes a difference. None of that is true. And people who contend otherwise in this environment should be ashamed of themselves.

It is attitudes such as this, attitudes in which people immediately defend the police, that cause some people to wear t-shirts that say "Black Lives Matter." Black lives do matter. All lives matter. And we shouldn't be leaping to conclusions until we determine exactly why this life was lost.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I haven't seen the police report and neither have you. It has not been publicly released. The prosecutor has seen it and has also, presumably, seen the knife. The prosecutor should know the law. At this point, I don't much care whether the police report labeled it a switchblade or a butterfly knife or a throwing star or something from the Swiss Army that includes four types of screwdrivers and a corkscrew. We will, presumably, find out eventually. Until we do, why should we simply accept the word of the cops over the prosecutor?
> 
> What difference does it make whether he was on probation? Had he skipped a court date? Apparently not--otherwise, he would, presumably, have a warrant out and so been arrested for that. He was not. He had no active warrants. We've already established that it is not illegal to run from the cops. Why are we re-plowing this ground?
> 
> And where are you getting this information that he had two assault charges? According to Fox News, hardly a bastion of liberals, he had no history of violence. Here's the story:
> 
> So far as we know, his criminal history included possession of pot, possession of other drugs, lying to cops and stealing some stuff. I'm only going by what Fox News has reported. No history of violence.
> 
> This contention that people are making stuff up, as you contend, the "hands up" line is, frankly, controverted by the facts as we know them to this point. It seems that people hell bent on defending the cops in the absence of facts are making things up--he had two assault charges, he had a swtichblade, maybe he was on probation and so that makes a difference. None of that is true. And people who contend otherwise in this environment should be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> It is attitudes such as this, attitudes in which people immediately defend the police, that cause some people to wear t-shirts that say "Black Lives Matter." Black lives do matter. All lives matter. And we shouldn't be leaping to conclusions until we determine exactly why this life was lost.


You can accuse me of making things up all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Here is the police report (which I have posted at least twice) - https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freddie_gray_complaint-600.jpg

Here is the list of charges from your link

March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance*March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault*
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
*September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape*
April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

And as for probation, it matters a great deal as if he was on probation then that totally changes his ability to run or not. Please note that nowhere have I said that he IS on probation, I simply asked if he was.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> You can accuse me of making things up all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
> 
> Here is the police report (which I have posted at least twice) - https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freddie_gray_complaint-600.jpg
> 
> Here is the list of charges from your link
> 
> March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance*March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault*
> January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
> January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
> December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
> December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
> August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
> January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
> *September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape*
> April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
> July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
> March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
> March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
> February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
> August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
> August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
> August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
> July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)
> 
> And as for probation, it matters a great deal as if he was on probation then that totally changes his ability to run or not. Please note that nowhere have I said that he IS on probation, I simply asked if he was.


Overlooked the assault counts, so my apologies. I will note that these are charges as opposed to convictions.

As for your second point, this is not a bona fide police report, it is a summary. The report to which I refer, and which we have not seen, includes a narrative, or narratives, from the arresting officer and/or officers that states what happened and lays out probable cause. No prosecutor would file charges based on this type of summary.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Overlooked the assault counts, so my apologies. I will note that these are charges as opposed to convictions.
> 
> As for your second point, this is not a bona fide police report, it is a summary. The report to which I refer, and which we have not seen, includes a narrative, or narratives, from the arresting officer and/or officers that states what happened and lays out probable cause. No prosecutor would file charges based on this type of summary.


I don't think that I ever said convictions, but perhaps I did.

And I don't mean to say that is the only documentation a out the arrest. But it clearly says the knife was a switchblade and even if it is a summary, it raises a question. And let's not pretend that there was an exhaustive review of moutains of evidence that took a long time. Didn't she filed the charges within a few days of being named?

edit - I have no idea what all of the facts are, but I am very skeptical in cases like this where a rush to judgement is so easy and politically expedient to do


----------



## 32rollandrock

All fair and good points. No one really is in a position to say now whether there has been a rush to judgment. We don't know what evidence the prosecutor has. The mere fact that charges came quickly doesn't mean there has been a rush. It may mean that the prosecutor has stronger evidence than anyone outside that office now knows.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> All fair and good points. No one really is in a position to say now whether there has been a rush to judgment. We don't know what evidence the prosecutor has.* The mere fact that charges came quickly doesn't mean there has been a rush. It may mean that the prosecutor has stronger evidence than anyone outside that office now knows*.


Was this before or after she told the mob that this was "their time"? This is the problem with the State's Attorney is an elected office.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> All fair and good points. No one really is in a position to say now whether there has been a rush to judgment. We don't know what evidence the prosecutor has. The mere fact that charges came quickly doesn't mean there has been a rush. It may mean that the prosecutor has stronger evidence than anyone outside that office now knows.


If it is true that the Baltimore laws on knives are more strict than the Maryland laws, then the fact that she left that out doesn't exactly instill confidence that she is open minded.

But we shall see.

Edit - apparently he was charged under the city, not state statute. Not so great for Ms. Mosby who specifically mentioned Maryland law.

Marc Zayon, Nero's attorney, argues in his motion that the knife in Gray's pocket - described in charging documents as "a spring assisted, one hand operated knife" - is illegal under both Baltimore's switchblade ordinance and state law. *Gray was charged under the city ordinance, which has a different definition than the state law of what constitutes a switchblade.*

A city ordinance says any knife with an automatic spring or other device to open and close the blade is illegal. State law says a knife is illegal if it opens automatically by pushing a button, spring or other device in the handle.
Some spring-assisted knives are opened by pushing a thumb stud attached to the blade.

https://bigstory.ap.org/article/704...-charged-gray-death-contends-arrest-was-legal


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Overlooked the assault counts, so my apologies. *I will note that these are charges as opposed to convictions. *
> 
> As for your second point, this is not a bona fide police report, it is a summary. The report to which I refer, and which we have not seen, includes a narrative, or narratives, from the arresting officer and/or officers that states what happened and lays out probable cause. No prosecutor would file charges based on this type of summary.


Will you also recognise that for every time a man is caught in possession (with intent to supply) that there are doubtless countless occasions that he was in possession (with intent to supply) but not caught?

Why do you appear to be so keen to present this habitual criminal as an innocent babe-in-the-woods?


----------



## SG_67

Here's a thought experiment:

Let's turn inner city Baltimore into a "drug arrest free" zone. Meaning, no arrests for the possession or sale of drugs. Let's see what that does for public safety. 

The odd thing is that were Mr. Gray left to his own devices and the incident never to have happened, his life would be likely met a nasty, brutish and short Hobbesian end at the hands of a rival drug dealer. Instead, he has become a martyr. 

People can dance in the streets and celebrate all they want. Baltimore will still be crime ridden, businesses will continue to flee and what little quality of life there may have been will only decelerate. I predict that much of the destruction from last weeks events will still be visible a year from now. 

Hell, some of the destruction from 1968 is still visible.


----------



## eagle2250

Reading through this thread I am struck by how easily and cavalierly so many are able to condemn the actions of the police, suggesting literal hell and damnation descend upon them. It's too bad you armchair prosecutors/judges/juries are unable to walk in the shoes of those "cops" before so quickly passing judgment upon them! Who among you has ever been spat, pissed, or puked on? Have you ever been cut (with an edged weapon), shot(at) on bludgeoned in the course of performing your work assignments? How many of you have been bitten by someone at work and had to endure almost two years of uncertainty, as the medical authorities completed testing to determine (almost) conclusively that you were not infected? Theses are all pretty regular occurrences in the lives of inner city 'cops!" They affect how a person views their world and those they encounter in said world...and perhaps, put in perspective how those Baltimore police officers viewed "Mr. Grey." I am not suggesting that anyone not be held accountable for their actions...those police officers should be tried for not properly securing Gray, after placing him in their vehicle..., but it is just as reasonable to conclude that it is completely understandable that they see the world differently than we might!

Perhaps that young, political prosecutor should spend some time walking the mean streets of that cesspool of human interaction that Baltimore's police offices must navigate each and every day of their working lives...if so, she might not be so forgiving of Mr. Gray's actions or, as a convicted felon, of his possession of a concealed, folding knife!


----------



## Acct2000

The young prosecutor is clearly motivated by higher political offices gained by the publicity she is earning. Don't get your hopes up.


----------



## SG_67

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The young prosecutor is clearly motivated by higher political offices gained by the publicity she is earning. Don't get your hopes up.


Yup! This is the problem when those affiliated with the justice system are elected officials. She's not only young, but probably inexperienced as well, at least for such a position.

I'm no lawyer but I just wonder if she's overcharged, revved up the mob and I worry about the consequences if that mob doesn't get what they want.


----------



## 32rollandrock

^^

I'm sensing a rush to judgment here in the opposite direction. We should wait for this to play out. And, while I appreciate Eagle's perspective, no one forces anyone to be a cop. Especially in large jurisdictions, it's a job that pays well with excellent benefits, excellent retirement benefits and enough union protection that termination is virtually impossible. Of course most officers are good people. That said, if cops would police their own better than they do, they'd get more respect and trust than they do.

What's happening in this country regarding public perceptions and opinions of police has not happened in a vacuum. I think that most people, myself included, hold police in high regard. But that doesn't mean that they should get a pass simply because they're cops.

Where I live, there's a cop who lied on the witness stand in a drug case, which resulted in the case being dismissed (he claimed that his investigation started with an anonymous telephone tip when, in fact, the tip came from someone he had pulled over). He wasn't prosecuted for perjury or suspended. Instead, he got a letter of reprimand. His fib can now be used to impeach his credibility when he testifies. His credibility has twice been called into question by judges who opined that his testimony in DUI cases was not believable--his statements on the witness stand were controverted by video, by testimony of another cop and by his own written reports, and the cases were dismissed. He improperly gathered evidence in a drug case and, when his supervisors found out, he suggesting being less than truthful on a search warrant application, essentially saying that the judge didn't have to know. He wasn't punished for that. And he is now being sued by a woman he tased during a traffic stop. A dashboard video captured the whole thing (the tasing occurs at roughly the 12-minute mark):






A judge in the lawsuit recently ruled that the video establishes that the violated the woman's rights and so the only question for a jury to decide is how much she should collect. The police department has consistently defended his actions, saying that he did nothing wrong and that what he did was within department policy. I think that the video speaks for itself.

This isn't a high-profile case. No one is marching or waving signs. And yet, I think that it helps explain why so many people feel the way that they do about police. You can lie on the witness stand. You can tase a woman who poses no threat. You can play fast-and-loose with constitutional rights. Cases can get dismissed and criminals walk because of it. And you won't get punished while taxpayers shell out thousands to defend your misdeeds in court. The fibbing on the witness stand came early in his career, just days after he suggested being less than truthful in a search warrant application and was counseled about the need to tell the truth in court proceedings. If he had been prosecuted for perjury and/or fired, none of the other stuff that came later would have happened. Instead, the department protected its own.

How is this defensible?


----------



## SG_67

^ No one is suggesting that breaking the law, lying or otherwise engaging in unethical (at best) or criminal activity on the part of the police is defensible or should be tolerated. 

I'm willing to bet that taking in aggregate all arrests made in the U.S. across the spectrum of law enforcement at all levels, the percentage where there is actual falsification of evidence or lying on the official report comes to an incredibly small percentage. Cops are human and they do make mistakes. There is a mechanism in place to discipline this and to correct it, and often the courts become involved. 

But each case needs to be weighed on it's own merits and on it's own evidence. What happened in South Carolina last month doesn't necessarily mean that this is how police act. Yet there is an element within our society willing to believe that this is representative of police activity.

Mr. Gray probably came from a broken home, likely didn't finish HS and more than likely never held down gainful employment for >6 months. How is any of that the fault of the police? If we expand out to Baltimore as a whole, how are the problems of inner city Baltimore the fault of the police? 

More acutely, was the looting and pillaging that took place the fault of the police? Was it justified? Better question, does anyone think that those who were looting, pillaging and rioting regular law abiding citizens who were just driven to the point of no return or were these hoodlums and troublemakers who took advantage of the unrest to steal with impunity?


----------



## 32rollandrock

The problem is, in the case I cited, the department is tolerating an officer who fibs, multiple times, while under oath. The department is defending an officer who tases a woman who is posing no threat and has her arms spread wide from her body, clearly unarmed not in an aggressive posture, when he zaps her. That's what the problem is: The good apples tolerate the bad ones, which spoils the entire barrel.

The police, by tolerating bad cops, have brought a large part of their problems on themselves. Interesting story in this regard in today's NYT--police unions have lost a lot of power simply because the public's opinion of cops isn't what it once was: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Whether Mr. Gray came from a broken home or dropped out of high school or never held a job is irrelevant.



SG_67 said:


> ^ No one is suggesting that breaking the law, lying or otherwise engaging in unethical (at best) or criminal activity on the part of the police is defensible or should be tolerated.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that taking in aggregate all arrests made in the U.S. across the spectrum of law enforcement at all levels, the percentage where there is actual falsification of evidence or lying on the official report comes to an incredibly small percentage. Cops are human and they do make mistakes. There is a mechanism in place to discipline this and to correct it, and often the courts become involved.
> 
> But each case needs to be weighed on it's own merits and on it's own evidence. What happened in South Carolina last month doesn't necessarily mean that this is how police act. Yet there is an element within our society willing to believe that this is representative of police activity.
> 
> Mr. Gray probably came from a broken home, likely didn't finish HS and more than likely never held down gainful employment for >6 months. How is any of that the fault of the police? If we expand out to Baltimore as a whole, how are the problems of inner city Baltimore the fault of the police?
> 
> More acutely, was the looting and pillaging that took place the fault of the police? Was it justified? Better question, does anyone think that those who were looting, pillaging and rioting regular law abiding citizens who were just driven to the point of no return or were these hoodlums and troublemakers who took advantage of the unrest to steal with impunity?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The problem is, in the case I cited, the department is tolerating an officer who fibs, multiple times, while under oath. The department is defending an officer who tases a woman who is posing no threat and has her arms spread wide from her body, clearly unarmed not in an aggressive posture, when he zaps her. That's what the problem is: The good apples tolerate the bad ones, which spoils the entire barrel.
> 
> The police, by tolerating bad cops, have brought a large part of their problems on themselves. Interesting story in this regard in today's NYT--police unions have lost a lot of power simply because the public's opinion of cops isn't what it once was: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
> 
> Whether Mr. Gray came from a broken home or dropped out of high school or never held a job is irrelevant.


Change bad cops to criminals and good cops to citizens and read that back to yourself.

But if we are going to use gross generalizations and singular cases to represent the population, then that is fine, but it probably isn't going to lead where you want it to go.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> The problem is, in the case I cited, the department is tolerating an officer who fibs, multiple times, while under oath. The department is defending an officer who tases a woman who is posing no threat and has her arms spread wide from her body, clearly unarmed not in an aggressive posture, when he zaps her. That's what the problem is: The good apples tolerate the bad ones, which spoils the entire barrel.
> 
> The police, by tolerating bad cops, have brought a large part of their problems on themselves. Interesting story in this regard in today's NYT--police unions have lost a lot of power simply because the public's opinion of cops isn't what it once was: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
> 
> Whether Mr. Gray came from a broken home or dropped out of high school or never held a job is irrelevant.


How about communities tolerating criminals?

The public's opinion of cops is just fine. The public who has a poor opinion of cops is the public that has always had a bad opinion of cops. They can't stand cops until it's their home that's robbed or their property that is stolen or life threatened.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think that I used the term "good cops" in the passage you quote.

I don't think that cops tolerate criminals, per se, but they do tolerate criminal behavior by police officers and then wonder why the public doesn't trust police. I wouldn't call that a gross generalization. I would call that a conclusion based on examples drawn from departments across the nation. What Serpico experienced in New York wasn't fiction, and there's no reason to think that the same stuff doesn't go on today. In addition to the above-cited example, there's another local case of a cop who got busted for having sex with a prostitute in his police car. It was widely reported, and there was forensic evidence, a used condom in a parking lot that internal affairs investigators found at the exact spot where the prostitute told investigators to look. The officer was allowed to resign and the case was widely reported in local media. The headlines--Officer Had Sex With Prostitute In Patrol Car--didn't stop another local department from quietly hiring the guy. Within a few months, he fondled a woman, this one unwilling, in his patrol car and was charged with a sex crime. She sued and collected money.

I could go on and on. The cop who falsified work-release records for a felon turned informant, kept his job, and was sued a few years later by a neighbor whom he terrorized, while on duty, over some sort of silly neighborhood dispute involving alleged insults said to the officer's son. Taxpayers shelled out several thousand dollars for that one but the cop kept his job. The cop who kept his job despite racking up more than 40 complaints in a dozen years, including one from a woman who said that he forced himself on her while on duty. That one was upheld, but the cop kept his job. Another from a probationary officer who said that this guy told him that some suspects need to be roughed up was neither upheld nor disproven, but the probationary officer who blew the whistle was blackballed and couldn't get a job in any local department. The two cops who had sex while on duty in a patrol car with, to their eternal dismay, an open radio mike on. Both kept their jobs, including the female half who was later arrested for shoplifting. She pleaded guilty to retail theft and kept her job (in that one, the cops at least tried to fire her but an arbitrator ordered her reinstated). The union contract that says the maximum penalty for a first offense is a five-day suspension if a cop, absent a prescription, tests positive for oxycodone, Dilaudid, morphine or any other number of prescription drugs recognized as highly addictive and prone to abuse. A positive test for marijuana, however, is a firing offense.

Do you want me to go on? I can. These examples, which you may or may not label singular cases, are from the top of my head, this isn't a large town and I haven't even lived here for ten years. Now, I'm not saying that all cops are bad. I think I've been pretty clear on that. I think that most cops are good. But why on earth would good cops tolerate these sorts of things, then get upset when the public questions whether cops can be trusted? Why wouldn't the public draw derogatory conclusions about cops in general when this sort of stuff happens, receives wide publicity and just keeps happening with a pretty fair degree of regularity?


vpkozel said:


> Change bad cops to criminals and good cops to citizens and read that back to yourself.
> 
> But if we are going to use gross generalizations and singular cases to represent the population, then that is fine, but it probably isn't going to lead where you want it to go.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I don't think that's accurate. Polls show that the public's opinion of police has deteriorated. Have you read the NYT I posted? That gives a pretty fair and convincing summation of just how much the power of police unions has plummeted. The power has plummeted because police no longer enjoy the support of the public that police once did. If it were otherwise, then the power of police unions to influence politicians would not have diminished to the degree that it has. This is how politics work.

And I think that you are over-generalizing here and lumping all cops into one basket, the "all cops are good" basket. I think that the majority of Americans believe that most police officers are good. I certainly do, and I appreciate that they have a tough job that I could not do myself. But that does not excuse their shortcomings. Neither the police or anyone else should be excused from being held accountable for their actions. I presume and hope that you agree with this. But what I'm hearing you say is, everything is fine, no need to change anything, cops should just keep doing what they're doing. And I don't agree with that. No community should tolerate criminals, especially when the criminals are wearing badges.



SG_67 said:


> How about communities tolerating criminals?
> 
> The public's opinion of cops is just fine. The public who has a poor opinion of cops is the public that has always had a bad opinion of cops. They can't stand cops until it's their home that's robbed or their property that is stolen or life threatened.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I don't think that's accurate. Polls show that the public's opinion of police has deteriorated. Have you read the NYT I posted? That gives a pretty fair and convincing summation of just how much the power of police unions has plummeted. The power has plummeted because police no longer enjoy the support of the public that police once did. If it were otherwise, then the power of police unions to influence politicians would not have diminished to the degree that it has. This is how politics work.
> 
> And I think that you are over-generalizing here and lumping all cops into one basket, the "all cops are good" basket. I think that the majority of Americans believe that most police officers are good. I certainly do, and I appreciate that they have a tough job that I could not do myself. But that does not excuse their shortcomings. Neither the police or anyone else should be excused from being held accountable for their actions. I presume and hope that you agree with this. But what I'm hearing you say is, everything is fine, no need to change anything, cops should just keep doing what they're doing. And I don't agree with that. No community should tolerate criminals, especially when the criminals are wearing badges.


I'm not lumping all cops into one basket. Merely indicating that the police have the support of the community at large and where they don't have support is usually in areas that have long distrusted the police.

Yet we keep on hearing stories about how police officers out their lives on the line, and often lose their lives, protecting and serving these same neighborhoods.

And stop with the "criminals with badges" nonsense. It's not wide spread as you are portraying.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> I'm not lumping all cops into one basket. Merely indicating that the police have the support of the community at large and where they don't have support is usually in areas that have long distrusted the police.
> 
> Yet we keep on hearing stories about how police officers out their lives on the line, and often lose their lives, protecting and serving these same neighborhoods.
> 
> And stop with the "criminals with badges" nonsense. It's not wide spread as you are portraying.


Most cops aren't criminals. I've said that several times. But, for the umpteenth time, they tolerate and protect a system that protects criminals in the ranks. You are also over-generalizing, I think, about who does and does not trust police. Lots of people in high-crime areas support the police--people are not necessarily stupid just because they're poor and black. Even in areas with lots of crime, most people are law abiding. They don't like living amongst thugs anymore than you or I would.

In Chicago, activists and leaders in the African American community rushed to defend Glenn Evans, a police commander known as a tough cop, dedicated to his job whose work made neighborhoods safer. Evans was also, apparently, a pretty brutal guy, the subject of at least 45 excessive-force complaints in a 20-year period, reportedly more than any other officer on the force. He is under indictment now, charged with sticking the barrel of a gun in a suspect's mouth, and it's not a he-said-she-said, given that the suspect's DNA was found on the gun barrel. And Evans is black.

We should be careful in our assumptions and generalizations.


----------



## vpkozel

You said good apples are being spoiled by the bad apples. I am assuming that you were not actually speaking about fruit.

And the point is that if you want to generalize about bad cops, then you have to accept it when others generalize as well - and there are a lot more Freddie Greys than there are Frank Serpicos. If you doubt that then look at your $40 million/year costs to settle Chicago police abuses vs. the rest of the police and department of prison budgets.

Generalizations are lazy, but both sides use them - but only to support their side. If they support the other side then they are racist, bigoted, anti police, or what ever other pejorative term people want to come up with.

Of course none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the specifics of the case at hand, but that might be the whole point of the exercise....



32rollandrock said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think that I used the term "good cops" in the passage you quote.
> 
> I don't think that cops tolerate criminals, per se, but they do tolerate criminal behavior by police officers and then wonder why the public doesn't trust police. I wouldn't call that a gross generalization. I would call that a conclusion based on examples drawn from departments across the nation. What Serpico experienced in New York wasn't fiction, and there's no reason to think that the same stuff doesn't go on today. In addition to the above-cited example, there's another local case of a cop who got busted for having sex with a prostitute in his police car. It was widely reported, and there was forensic evidence, a used condom in a parking lot that internal affairs investigators found at the exact spot where the prostitute told investigators to look. The officer was allowed to resign and the case was widely reported in local media. The headlines--Officer Had Sex With Prostitute In Patrol Car--didn't stop another local department from quietly hiring the guy. Within a few months, he fondled a woman, this one unwilling, in his patrol car and was charged with a sex crime. She sued and collected money.
> 
> I could go on and on. The cop who falsified work-release records for a felon turned informant, kept his job, and was sued a few years later by a neighbor whom he terrorized, while on duty, over some sort of silly neighborhood dispute involving alleged insults said to the officer's son. Taxpayers shelled out several thousand dollars for that one but the cop kept his job. The cop who kept his job despite racking up more than 40 complaints in a dozen years, including one from a woman who said that he forced himself on her while on duty. That one was upheld, but the cop kept his job. Another from a probationary officer who said that this guy told him that some suspects need to be roughed up was neither upheld nor disproven, but the probationary officer who blew the whistle was blackballed and couldn't get a job in any local department. The two cops who had sex while on duty in a patrol car with, to their eternal dismay, an open radio mike on. Both kept their jobs, including the female half who was later arrested for shoplifting. She pleaded guilty to retail theft and kept her job (in that one, the cops at least tried to fire her but an arbitrator ordered her reinstated). The union contract that says the maximum penalty for a first offense is a five-day suspension if a cop, absent a prescription, tests positive for oxycodone, Dilaudid, morphine or any other number of prescription drugs recognized as highly addictive and prone to abuse. A positive test for marijuana, however, is a firing offense.
> 
> Do you want me to go on? I can. These examples, which you may or may not label singular cases, are from the top of my head, this isn't a large town and I haven't even lived here for ten years. Now, I'm not saying that all cops are bad. I think I've been pretty clear on that. I think that most cops are good. But why on earth would good cops tolerate these sorts of things, then get upset when the public questions whether cops can be trusted? Why wouldn't the public draw derogatory conclusions about cops in general when this sort of stuff happens, receives wide publicity and just keeps happening with a pretty fair degree of regularity?


----------



## 32rollandrock

What do you mean by more Freddie Grays? People who die in police custody?

Whether Gray was a criminal or not is irrelevant. I don't understand why his criminal record keeps coming up. Surely, you don't believe that police are justified in abusing and killing the people they take into custody, and most people taken into custody have, in fact, done something to deserve it. We don't yet know whether that is the case with Mr. Gray. We have at this point a he-said-she-said with regard to the legality of the knife, which leads me to believe that he wasn't toting a sword or an 18-inch Bowie knife or the like. And I still maintain that it would have been smart policing simply to have confiscated the knife and issued a summons. Why go through all the expense and hoopla of throwing someone in jail for a minor offense when you know that he's going to get out within an hour or two?

Beyond this--and I don't think that this is a generalization--the reaction of police, specifically police unions, in the wake of the Walter Scott killing is instructive. The union in South Carolina put out the epitome of a tone-deaf press release, giving only passing reference to the fact that a cop shot a fleeing man in the back, then lied about it. The union, which talked about race agitators more than the killing, was widely criticized and that criticism must have sunk in, given that the release isn't posted on the union's website. Fortunately, someone saved a copy:

I don't know about you, but I can't read that press release from the head of the union and not wonder "What on earth is he thinking?" A cop kills a man in cold blood and he's spouting like some folks here on this thread. What he should have done is apologize to the community on behalf of all the righteous officers and strongly condemn Slager's act as undermining public trust in the police. But, all too often, "I'm sorry" or "We're sorry" doesn't seem to be in the vocabulary of cops. At least the union where the tragedy occurred said something. I'm not sure any union anywhere else issued any statement at all. If they had, that might have gone a long way toward repairing the image of cops in the public's mind. Instead, the public is left to believe that cops protect their own and won't criticize other cops no matter what.

Is this a generalization?



vpkozel said:


> You said good apples are being spoiled by the bad apples. I am assuming that you were not actually speaking about fruit.
> 
> And the point is that if you want to generalize about bad cops, then you have to accept it when others generalize as well - and there are a lot more Freddie Greys than there are Frank Serpicos. If you doubt that then look at your $40 million/year costs to settle Chicago police abuses vs. the rest of the police and department of prison budgets.
> 
> Generalizations are lazy, but both sides use them - but only to support their side. If they support the other side then they are racist, bigoted, anti police, or what ever other pejorative term people want to come up with.
> 
> Of course none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the specifics of the case at hand, but that might be the whole point of the exercise....





vpkozel said:


> You said good apples are being spoiled by the bad apples. I am assuming that you were not actually speaking about fruit.
> 
> And the point is that if you want to generalize about bad cops, then you have to accept it when others generalize as well - and there are a lot more Freddie Greys than there are Frank Serpicos. If you doubt that then look at your $40 million/year costs to settle Chicago police abuses vs. the rest of the police and department of prison budgets.
> 
> Generalizations are lazy, but both sides use them - but only to support their side. If they support the other side then they are racist, bigoted, anti police, or what ever other pejorative term people want to come up with.
> 
> Of course none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the specifics of the case at hand, but that might be the whole point of the exercise....


----------



## Chouan

Interesting stuff here:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/06/chicago-police-torture-victims-deal https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-chicago-washington-politicians-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cago-police-military-interrogation-guantanamo


----------



## vpkozel

More Freddie Greys as in convicted criminals who continue to have run ins with the police.

And his record, history, and reputation most definitely have bearing on how the police treat him. Your previous actions will always follow you. Please understand this next part very clearly - read it multiple times if needed.

No one's previous record, crimes, etc. EVER justifies them getting beat up, abused, killed, etc. without reason. Nor do prior convictions ever presume guilt in a court of law. But the trial is very different from the arrest. With very different standards.

As to the union - that is exactly what they should be doing. They are an advocate for their members - be they steelworkers, football players, or police. And they are supposed to vigorously defend their client even if they think that person is guilty. No different from a defense lawyer really. And if you think that sounds tone deaf or that they are somehow doing something wrong, then that is really more a problem with you, not with them. Just curiously, do you have a problem with Sharpton, Jackson, et. al advocating for the victims - even when they are using dubious facts and inflaming the situation?

But, as usual, you are discussing only one side of the problem - the police behavior. Do you think that police are ever the victims of false allegations? What % do you think that makes up of all complaints? It is no different than folks being incorrectly accused or arrested of a crime.



32rollandrock said:


> What do you mean by more Freddie Grays? People who die in police custody?
> 
> Whether Gray was a criminal or not is irrelevant. I don't understand why his criminal record keeps coming up. Surely, you don't believe that police are justified in abusing and killing the people they take into custody, and most people taken into custody have, in fact, done something to deserve it. We don't yet know whether that is the case with Mr. Gray. We have at this point a he-said-she-said with regard to the legality of the knife, which leads me to believe that he wasn't toting a sword or an 18-inch Bowie knife or the like. And I still maintain that it would have been smart policing simply to have confiscated the knife and issued a summons. Why go through all the expense and hoopla of throwing someone in jail for a minor offense when you know that he's going to get out within an hour or two?
> 
> Beyond this--and I don't think that this is a generalization--the reaction of police, specifically police unions, in the wake of the Walter Scott killing is instructive. The union in South Carolina put out the epitome of a tone-deaf press release, giving only passing reference to the fact that a cop shot a fleeing man in the back, then lied about it. The union, which talked about race agitators more than the killing, was widely criticized and that criticism must have sunk in, given that the release isn't posted on the union's website. Fortunately, someone saved a copy:
> 
> I don't know about you, but I can't read that press release from the head of the union and not wonder "What on earth is he thinking?" A cop kills a man in cold blood and he's spouting like some folks here on this thread. What he should have done is apologize to the community on behalf of all the righteous officers and strongly condemn Slager's act as undermining public trust in the police. But, all too often, "I'm sorry" or "We're sorry" doesn't seem to be in the vocabulary of cops. At least the union where the tragedy occurred said something. I'm not sure any union anywhere else issued any statement at all. If they had, that might have gone a long way toward repairing the image of cops in the public's mind. Instead, the public is left to believe that cops protect their own and won't criticize other cops no matter what.
> 
> Is this a generalization?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Of course the police are subject to false allegations. It comes with the job. That's part of why the overwhelming number of complaints against officers are not upheld.

Read what you wrote, keeping in mind that the lawfulness of the arrest is in doubt. No one should be falsely arrested. I think we both agree on that. Mr. Gray was a petty criminal. What good does it do to throw a petty criminal in jail for a couple hours? You might agree with this, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I would rather reserve public resources for more meaningful things. That is my opinion.

As for unions, there is a political element to police unions as well as many others. This is why they have websites and otherwise put out public statements to build support for their points of view. It is not simply a matter of defending whatever their members do. And unions, contrary to popular belief, are not obligated to defend members no matter what they do. If it were otherwise, they would be defending Officer Slager. If police unions were smart, they would do and say things to build public trust and support of police. Instead, they do the opposite, which comes off as arrogant, which helps erode public support of police, which makes the jobs of honest cops that much more difficult.

Mr. Sharpton and other race hustlers are free to do as they wish, phony as they might be. There is a ying and yang to most everything, and so it is here. The race hustlers would not be nearly so ubiquitous if there wasn't an issue for them to seize as their own. There is an issue, and in the absence of solutions, they are seizing it as their own.



vpkozel said:


> More Freddie Greys as in convicted criminals who continue to have run ins with the police.
> 
> And his record, history, and reputation most definitely have bearing on how the police treat him. Your previous actions will always follow you. Please understand this next part very clearly - read it multiple times if needed.
> 
> No one's previous record, crimes, etc. EVER justifies them getting beat up, abused, killed, etc. without reason. Nor do prior convictions ever presume guilt in a court of law. But the trial is very different from the arrest. With very different standards.
> 
> As to the union - that is exactly what they should be doing. They are an advocate for their members - be they steelworkers, football players, or police. And they are supposed to vigorously defend their client even if they think that person is guilty. No different from a defense lawyer really. And if you think that sounds tone deaf or that they are somehow doing something wrong, then that is really more a problem with you, not with them. Just curiously, do you have a problem with Sharpton, Jackson, et. al advocating for the victims - even when they are using dubious facts and inflaming the situation?
> 
> But, as usual, you are discussing only one side of the problem - the police behavior. Do you think that police are ever the victims of false allegations? What % do you think that makes up of all complaints? It is no different than folks being incorrectly accused or arrested of a crime.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Of course the police are subject to false allegations. It comes with the job. That's part of why the overwhelming number of complaints against officers are not upheld.


Glad we got that out of the way.



> Read what you wrote, keeping in mind that the lawfulness of the arrest is in doubt.


No, it is not in doubt. He ran, had a knife that the police officer reasonably suspected was illegal, and he was a known felon with assaults on his record. All of those taken together make it absolutely without a doubt a viable reason to take him downtown for questioning. Whether or not he would have been booked, processed, and sent to trial is immaterial. Those all happen AFTER the arrest - if warranted.



> No one should be falsely arrested. I think we both agree on that.


Falsely arrested or arrested based on reasonable circumstances that turn out to be inaccurate later are 2 VERY different things.



> Mr. Gray was a petty criminal. What good does it do to throw a petty criminal in jail for a couple hours? You might agree with this, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I would rather reserve public resources for more meaningful things. That is my opinion.


Well, that is one way to approach crime. Do you advocate never messing with any petty criminals at all?

And, while obviously an extreme case, exactly what had Mohamed Atta been guilty of doing on 9/10/01?



> As for unions, there is a political element to police unions as well as many others. This is why they have websites and otherwise put out public statements to build support for their points of view. It is not simply a matter of defending whatever their members do. And unions, contrary to popular belief, are not obligated to defend members no matter what they do. If it were otherwise, they would be defending Officer Slager. If police unions were smart, they would do and say things to build public trust and support of police. Instead, they do the opposite, which comes off as arrogant, which helps erode public support of police, which makes the jobs of honest cops that much more difficult.


Again with the taking a specific case and extrapolating. That gets a bit tiresome to be honest. And I don't think that the confidence in police is eroding at all.



> Mr. Sharpton and other race hustlers are free to do as they wish, phony as they might be. There is a ying and yang to most everything, and so it is here. The race hustlers would not be nearly so ubiquitous if there wasn't an issue for them to seize as their own. There is an issue, and in the absence of solutions, they are seizing it as their own.


Absence of solutions? What do you think we have been trying for the past 60 years? If we haven't been trying to solve the problem, then we should cease all spending on poverty programs immediately. It might also be worth noting that the city and state in question here have been under Democratic (and often minority) control for the past 50 years, so if this is a failure of government, then let's get them the hell out.

Personally, I consider advocates on both sides to be simply noise. And generally very poorly informed - or outright lying - noise at that. So I just tune them out.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Turns out that Freddie Gray wasn't the only one with a history of violence: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/freddie-gray-baltimore-police-brian-rice

The Reader's Digest version: The officer who first had contact with Gray, the one who gave chase after eye contact was made, threatened to kill himself and the husband of his ex-girlfriend at least once. Authorities were concerned enough that they twice confiscated his guns and once took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation. At one point, there was an armed standoff when the officer showed up, smelling of alcohol, in the wee hours at the husband's home--officers from two departments responded to defuse the situation, and they were reportedly there for 90 minutes. The officer also used his department-issued Blackberry to send harassing and obscene messages to the husband.

Now, this doesn't answer the question as to what happened to Mr. Gray. But it does, in my opinion, beg two questions: Why wasn't he prosecuted, not even for a misdemeanor, and why was he allowed to remain on the force as a lieutenant? This goes to the issue of police who do bad things getting special treatment, eroding public trust in the police.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Turns out that Freddie Gray wasn't the only one with a history of violence: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/freddie-gray-baltimore-police-brian-rice
> 
> The Reader's Digest version: The officer who first had contact with Gray, the one who gave chase after eye contact was made, threatened to kill himself and the husband of his ex-girlfriend at least once. Authorities were concerned enough that they twice confiscated his guns and once took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation. At one point, there was an armed standoff when the officer showed up, smelling of alcohol, in the wee hours at the husband's home--officers from two departments responded to defuse the situation, and they were reportedly there for 90 minutes. The officer also used his department-issued Blackberry to send harassing and obscene messages to the husband.
> 
> Now, this doesn't answer the question as to what happened to Mr. Gray. But it does, in my opinion, beg two questions: Why wasn't he prosecuted, not even for a misdemeanor, and why was he allowed to remain on the force as a lieutenant? This goes to the issue of police who do bad things getting special treatment, eroding public trust in the police.


Perhaps there were no charges because almost everything is hearsay from a witness with obvious motivations. That doesn't make it untrue, and I have no idea what actually occurred, but just because someone says something happens a certain way does not mean that it is the truth. That is what investigations are for. I would also note that the article simply accepts the idea Mosby's statements as accurate without noting that there is at least some doubt there.

But most importantly this mean that we get to use Freddie Gray's past bad behavior in weighing the actions as well?

I just want some consistency.


----------



## 32rollandrock

True, there are unanswered questions. Undisputed, however, is the fact that they twice seized his firearms and once took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation. And police were deployed when he showed up at the guy's house, uninvited, at 2 a.m., reportedly armed. Also, the accuser is a Baltimore firefighter. Now, that doesn't mean that he's telling the truth, but it does signal that he isn't a scum bum with a criminal record a zillion miles long. And what motive would he have to lie? I suspect that we'll be hearing more about how and why the department and prosecutors handled this matter. I think that it's important.

I don't bring this up to do a compare-and-contrast with Mr. Gray, but rather to underscore that there is a perception, justified in my view, that police officers are treated differently than others when they engage, or are alleged to have engaged, in criminal activity. If I had showed up at my ex-girlfriend's husband's house at 2 a.m., drunk and armed and acting in a menacing fashion, I would certainly lose my job, at the very least. I would very likely also be charged with a crime--it is illegal, at least where I live, to threaten someone while packing heat. Disparate treatment of police officers who engage in illegal activity is absolutely, I think, a factor in public outrage toward law enforcement and accompanying mistrust of police.

Again, it will be interesting to learn more facts about Mr. Rice's run-ins with law enforcement while off duty. And I suspect that we will be learning more. This is not an issue that is going to go away, I think, and I also believe that it is healthy to look closely at how police officers who break the law are treated by law enforcement.



vpkozel said:


> Perhaps there were no charges because almost everything is hearsay from a witness with obvious motivations. That doesn't make it untrue, and I have no idea what actually occurred, but just because someone says something happens a certain way does not mean that it is the truth. That is what investigations are for. I would also note that the article simply accepts the idea Mosby's statements as accurate without noting that there is at least some doubt there.
> 
> But most importantly this mean that we get to use Freddie Gray's past bad behavior in weighing the actions as well?
> 
> I just want some consistency.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> True, there are unanswered questions. Undisputed, however, is the fact that they twice seized his firearms and once took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation. And police were deployed when he showed up at the guy's house, uninvited, at 2 a.m., reportedly armed. Also, the accuser is a Baltimore firefighter. Now, that doesn't mean that he's telling the truth, but it does signal that he isn't a scum bum with a criminal record a zillion miles long. And what motive would he have to lie? I suspect that we'll be hearing more about how and why the department and prosecutors handled this matter. I think that it's important.
> 
> I don't bring this up to do a compare-and-contrast with Mr. Gray, but rather to underscore that there is a perception, justified in my view, that police officers are treated differently than others when they engage, or are alleged to have engaged, in criminal activity. If I had showed up at my ex-girlfriend's husband's house at 2 a.m., drunk and armed and acting in a menacing fashion, I would certainly lose my job, at the very least. I would very likely also be charged with a crime--it is illegal, at least where I live, to threaten someone while packing heat. Disparate treatment of police officers who engage in illegal activity is absolutely, I think, a factor in public outrage toward law enforcement and accompanying mistrust of police.
> 
> Again, it will be interesting to learn more facts about Mr. Rice's run-ins with law enforcement while off duty. And I suspect that we will be learning more. This is not an issue that is going to go away, I think, and I also believe that it is healthy to look closely at how police officers who break the law are treated by law enforcement.


Prior bad acts are never admissible in a determination of guilt or innocence. But like I said if you want to go there, let's be consistent. Rice was never prosecuted, was Gray?

Also, perhaps you aren't familiar with the relationship police and firemen generally have. Basically, they hate each other. Add in the fact that one of them was boinking the other's ex and it isn't going to take much to light that fire.

None of this excuses any crimes committed by Rice, but if we are going to try these types of things with innuendo and unsubstantiated facts, we need to do it for both sides.

Edit - what laws did Rice break?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Ack. For the umpteenth time, let's not compare Rice with Gray. That isn't the point here. The point is, public trust in the police erodes when the public doesn't trust the police to police the police. And there are significant questions about how the department did, or did not, respond to Rice's behavior prior to Gray entering the public consciousness.

At the very least, the description of Rice's actions seem to fall under the definition of disorderly conduct, which where I live is defined as any actions that "alarm or disturb." Going to your ex's significant other's house uninvited at 2 a.m. and prompting a police response seems to me to be both alarming and disturbing.

We don't know anything about whether the relationship between cops and firefighters means anything here. I would characterize such to be a gross generalization and stereotype. It should also be added that the woman in question here, the now-spouse of the firefighter, is an employee of the police department. So much for generalizations and stereotypes.

All I am saying, and all I have said, is that it appears that there are serious questions about Rice's conduct that rise, at least potentially, to the level of whether he should even have been on the force. Do you honestly disagree that there isn't an issue when a cop has his guns taken away and is hauled off for a mental evaluation? When officers from two different departments are summoned to defuse a wee-hours confrontation that never would have happened if the officer in question hadn't gone some place that he obviously didn't belong? Or do you just like to argue and defend cops no matter the situation or what they do?

We expect officers to be held to a high standard, a standard, in fact, that's higher than others are held to. Cops themselves say it all the time.



vpkozel said:


> Prior bad acts are never admissible in a determination of guilt or innocence. But like I said if you want to go there, let's be consistent. Rice was never prosecuted, was Gray?
> 
> Also, perhaps you aren't familiar with the relationship police and firemen generally have. Basically, they hate each other. Add in the fact that one of them was boinking the other's ex and it isn't going to take much to light that fire.
> 
> None of this excuses any crimes committed by Rice, but if we are going to try these types of things with innuendo and unsubstantiated facts, we need to do it for both sides.
> 
> Edit - what laws did Rice break?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Ack. For the umpteenth time, let's not compare Rice with Gray. That isn't the point here. The point is, public trust in the police erodes when the public doesn't trust the police to police the police. And there are significant questions about how the department did, or did not, respond to Rice's behavior prior to Gray entering the public consciousness.
> 
> At the very least, the description of Rice's actions seem to fall under the definition of disorderly conduct, which where I live is defined as any actions that "alarm or disturb." Going to your ex's significant other's house uninvited at 2 a.m. and prompting a police response seems to me to be both alarming and disturbing.
> 
> We don't know anything about whether the relationship between cops and firefighters means anything here. I would characterize such to be a gross generalization and stereotype. It should also be added that the woman in question here, the now-spouse of the firefighter, is an employee of the police department. So much for generalizations and stereotypes.
> 
> All I am saying, and all I have said, is that it appears that there are serious questions about Rice's conduct that rise, at least potentially, to the level of whether he should even have been on the force. Do you honestly disagree that there isn't an issue when a cop has his guns taken away and is hauled off for a mental evaluation? When officers from two different departments are summoned to defuse a wee-hours confrontation that never would have happened if the officer in question hadn't gone some place that he obviously didn't belong? Or do you just like to argue and defend cops no matter the situation or what they do?
> 
> We expect officers to be held to a high standard, a standard, in fact, that's higher than others are held to. Cops themselves say it all the time.


So, basically what you are saying it is perfectly fine to prejudge situations or sling innuendo, as long as you agree with it?

And of course the relationship was a generalization, which is why I put the phrase "generally have" in the sentence. This is not exactly breaking news, btw.

And if you don't want to discuss, compare, or contrast it, why did you bring it up?


----------



## 32rollandrock

All asked and answered, more than once. Let's move on.



vpkozel said:


> So, basically what you are saying it is perfectly fine to prejudge situations or sling innuendo, as long as you agree with it?
> 
> And of course the relationship was a generalization, which is why I put the phrase "generally have" in the sentence. This is not exactly breaking news, btw.
> 
> And if you don't want to discuss, compare, or contrast it, why did you bring it up?


----------



## SG_67

This is rich! 

32RR,
You said a few posts ago that Freddy Gray's previous criminal history was irrelevant to his being arrested. Yet you suggest that this police officer's previous history may have influenced his current behavior?

Whether he was effectively punished can be argued. But to suggest that he had a propensity toward poor judgement or even violence is really the height or irrelevancy.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> All asked and answered, more than once. Let's move on.


All asked, but not answered. But, sure, let's move on.

Should we start with the Baltimore mayor's request to allow the protestors to destroy in a safe place (can't remember the specific statement), that the police are complaining that she hung them out to dry, that the prosecutor had such compelling evidence that she felt compelled to press charges after a weekend but has since released none of it - claiming that she does not want to try the case in the press, even though she called a big presser to announce the charges and that she was going to get justice for Freddie Gray?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Within the context of our discussion, everything has been asked and answered. Let's confine ourselves to what we here have talked about, and, with that said, let's move on.



vpkozel said:


> All asked, but not answered. But, sure, let's move on.
> 
> Should we start with the Baltimore mayor's request to allow the protestors to destroy in a safe place (can't remember the specific statement), that the police are complaining that she hung them out to dry, that the prosecutor had such compelling evidence that she felt compelled to press charges after a weekend but has since released none of it - claiming that she does not want to try the case in the press, even though she called a big presser to announce the charges and that she was going to get justice for Freddie Gray?


----------



## SG_67

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-mosby-on-stage-20150511-story.html

I think this speaks to the overall incompetence of Baltimore's city government.

Again, this is what happens when the kids are left in charge.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-mosby-on-stage-20150511-story.html
> 
> I think this speaks to the overall incompetence of Baltimore's city government.
> 
> Again, this is what happens when the kids are left in charge.


I agree. Not a good move at all .


----------



## 32rollandrock

Where will it end?



Beyond the obvious, the disturbing parts include:

1. The police board voted 5-4 to fire the guy. Four said that he only deserved a suspension. What were they thinking? This should have been a stone-cold unanimous vote.
2. It's not clear whether the police union is paying his legal expenses. What? The police union should have issued a statement of condemnation. Instead, union brass can't be reached for comment.
3. He said that he did it while young and impressionable and in an effort to "fit in." Fit in with what? This seems to suggest that this sort of thing is tolerated, if not encouraged, in the police department. It should be noted that this is the same department where officers played "Sweet Home Alabama" over a patrol car's loudspeaker while escorting peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out about what they perceived to be racism in law enforcement.

If I were black and I lived in Chicago, I know what conclusions I would draw about Chicago police. I don't live in Chicago and I'm not black and I think that there is a powerful stench in the Chicago Police Department.


----------



## MaxBuck

32rollandrock said:


> Where will it end?
> 
> Beyond the obvious, the disturbing parts include:
> 
> 1. The police board voted 5-4 to fire the guy. Four said that he only deserved a suspension. What were they thinking? This should have been a stone-cold unanimous vote.
> 2. It's not clear whether the police union is paying his legal expenses. What? The police union should have issued a statement of condemnation. Instead, union brass can't be reached for comment.
> 3. He said that he did it while young and impressionable and in an effort to "fit in." Fit in with what? This seems to suggest that this sort of thing is tolerated, if not encouraged, in the police department. It should be noted that this is the same department where officers played "Sweet Home Alabama" over a patrol car's loudspeaker while escorting peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out about what they perceived to be racism in law enforcement.
> 
> If I were black and I lived in Chicago, I know what conclusions I would draw about Chicago police. I don't live in Chicago and I'm not black and I think that there is a powerful stench in the Chicago Police Department.


What a humorless bureaucracy that fired Officer McDermott.

First, the black guy in the photo is mugging for the camera and appears *completely in on the joke.* And that's what it is, a joke.

Second, there's nothing about having someone pose as a deer that strikes me as racist in the least. You have someone *claiming* it to be racist, but unfortunately that word (like Nazi, fascist, sexist, liberal, Commie) is one that is thrown around to depreciate its target without necessarily having any basis in reality.

Other charges have been levied against McDermott by federal officials, so I'm not ready to defend the guy in toto. But this photo? The Chicago PD has much more serious issues than this.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Don't even know where to begin with this. But try this for a start: The person who is posing as a slain deer was, reportedly, a suspect in a crime. They ended up turning him loose. That doesn't sound like someone who was in on a joke. If you were Jewish (and maybe you are, I don't know) would you pose by an oven and think it amusing?

Sorry, but if you can't understand why...

Well, as I say, I really don't know where to begin. Let's just say that there is a very good reason the racial divide in our country is so deep and intractable.



MaxBuck said:


> What a humorless bureaucracy that fired Officer McDermott.
> 
> First, the black guy in the photo is mugging for the camera and appears *completely in on the joke.* And that's what it is, a joke.
> 
> Second, there's nothing about having someone pose as a deer that strikes me as racist in the least. You have someone *claiming* it to be racist, but unfortunately that word (like Nazi, fascist, sexist, liberal, Commie) is one that is thrown around to depreciate its target without necessarily having any basis in reality.
> 
> Other charges have been levied against McDermott by federal officials, so I'm not ready to defend the guy in toto. But this photo? The Chicago PD has much more serious issues than this.


----------



## MaxBuck

32rollandrock said:


> Don't even know where to begin with this. But try this for a start: The person who is posing as a slain deer was, reportedly, a suspect in a crime. They ended up turning him loose. That doesn't sound like someone who was in on a joke. If you were Jewish (and maybe you are, I don't know) would you pose by an oven and think it amusing?
> 
> Sorry, but if you can't understand why...
> 
> Well, as I say, I really don't know where to begin. Let's just say that there is a very good reason the racial divide in our country is so deep and intractable.


There sure is, but this joke photo has jack squat to do with it.

I repeat, it's a joke. You're positing analogies that are entirely inapposite. Suggesting that having a black guy dress up as a deer is analogous to having a Jew pose in front of a crematorium is absurd.


----------



## 32rollandrock

MaxBuck said:


> There sure is, but this joke photo has jack squat to do with it.
> 
> I repeat, it's a joke. You're positing analogies that are entirely inapposite. Suggesting that having a black guy dress up as a deer is analogous to having a Jew pose in front of a crematorium is absurd.


No, it is not absurd. At all. If you cannot understand why, then you have much to learn about race relations and deer hunting.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Don't even know where to begin with this. But try this for a start: The person who is posing as a slain deer was, reportedly, a suspect in a crime. They ended up turning him loose. That doesn't sound like someone who was in on a joke.* If you were Jewish (and maybe you are, I don't know) would you pose by an oven and think it amusing?*
> 
> Sorry, but if you can't understand why...
> 
> Well, as I say, I really don't know where to begin. Let's just say that there is a very good reason the racial divide in our country is so deep and intractable.


I doubt that the majority of Jews think of the Shoah each time they make the dinner. Certainly none of my lady friends from the Tribe have ever seemed alarmed when they entered the kitchen.

You are being silly 32rnr.

Next you will be telling us that a man needs a contract before making love to a woman.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Due respect, but I'm thinking that you, being from across the pond, may not understand the cultural aspect of this.

The photo implies that the cops shot this guy as a trophy--deer hunting is very popular in Illinois and this is the standard picture hunters take when they make a kill. No one--no one--would voluntarily appear in a photograph such as this as the person/animal who was shot. It's just not funny from any angle. The Sun Times, which broke the story, can explain it better than myself. It is sickening enough that the newspaper considered not running it at all. Here's the paper's explanation:

There is a very good reason that the officer was fired, and there is a very good reason that the newspaper published this opinion piece. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. The police chief who fired the officer had it exactly right when quoted in the story: The photo "is disgusting, and the despicable actions of these two former officers have no place in our police department or in our society."'



Shaver said:


> I doubt that the majority of Jews think of the Shoah each time they make the dinner. Certainly none of my lady friends from the Tribe have ever seemed alarmed when they entered the kitchen.
> 
> You are being silly 32rnr.
> 
> Next you will be telling us that a man needs a contract before making love to a woman.


----------



## Acct2000

I understand the nasty symbolism; I wonder why they would do it; I especially wonder why they would have a prisoner (arrestee) appear his way.

I know a lot of hunters; it would be a bizarre picture, but it's not impossible for me to imagine a couple non-police doing the picture - - however only with someone from their own race. It would not be funny to most, but there are some people with a really odd sense of humor out there.

These policemen who did the picture in Chicago should really have known better. It is probably best to leave "humor" out of the process when you are arresting people.


----------



## 32rollandrock

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I understand the nasty symbolism; I wonder why they would do it; I especially wonder why they would have a prisoner (arrestee) appear his way.
> 
> I know a lot of hunters; it would be a bizarre picture, but *it's not impossible for me to imagine a couple non-police doing the picture - - however only with someone from their own race.* It would not be funny to most, but there are some people with a really odd sense of humor out there.
> 
> These policemen who did the picture in Chicago should really have known better. It is probably best to leave "humor" out of the process when you are arresting people.


This is it, exactly. That they would have done it with a non-African American is hard to fathom. That's the crux of what they thought was amusing about this. And it's equally tough for me to imagine any African American doing this voluntarily for anyone, let alone cops who had just arrested him. We'll never know for sure, but smart money says he did it out of either fear of the police or because they threatened to take him to jail if he did not.


----------



## SG_67

^ They should be fired for general stupidity. That's it. 

It really doesn't matter to me the nastiness that one harbors in his heart as their is little I can do about that. But for me, the posting of self portraits on social media is the prelude to the decline of Western Civilization. As such, these guys are just too stupid to trust with firearms.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, but I'm thinking that you, being from across the pond, may not understand the cultural aspect of this.
> 
> The photo implies that the cops shot this guy as a trophy--deer hunting is very popular in Illinois and this is the standard picture hunters take when they make a kill. No one--no one--would voluntarily appear in a photograph such as this as the person/animal who was shot. It's just not funny from any angle. The Sun Times, which broke the story, can explain it better than myself. It is sickening enough that the newspaper considered not running it at all. Here's the paper's explanation:
> 
> There is a very good reason that the officer was fired, and there is a very good reason that the newspaper published this opinion piece. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. The police chief who fired the officer had it exactly right when quoted in the story: The photo "is disgusting, and the despicable actions of these two former officers have no place in our police department or in our society."'


I do understand the cultural aspect.

However I was not commenting on this case, which does not inspire any response within me, but rather that your comparison seemed feeble.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'll plead guilty. I could have found a better example. In my outrage, I took a shortcut parallel which perhaps wasn't the best.



Shaver said:


> I do understand the cultural aspect.
> 
> However I was not commenting on this case, which does not inspire any response within me, but rather that your comparison seemed feeble.


----------



## 32rollandrock

One quibble: It wasn't on social media, it was on a Polaroid, before the days of social media. But the essential point remains: They thought that it was worthy of preserving for posterity, indicating a rottenness in their hearts/minds/souls that is difficult, at least for me, to imagine.

Agreed that it also indicates a level of stupidity that makes them unfit to be cops.



SG_67 said:


> ^ They should be fired for general stupidity. That's it.
> 
> It really doesn't matter to me the nastiness that one harbors in his heart as their is little I can do about that. But for me, the posting of self portraits on social media is the prelude to the decline of Western Civilization. As such, these guys are just too stupid to trust with firearms.


----------



## SG_67

^ The point remains the same, be it on a polaroid or on social media.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ The point remains the same, be it on a polaroid or on social media.


Yes.

The thing I don't understand is, this kind of stuff makes every good cop's job that much harder--it builds distrust and undermines credibility and fosters stereotypes and makes it more difficult, I suspect, to do the job on a day-to-day basis--and there are way more good cops than there are bad cops. Why is it, then, that the good cops don't speak out against this? When the union can't be reached for comment or to see if the union is providing legal representation for this guy, and it's a safe bet that the reporter tried, that speaks volumes. The reporter shouldn't have even had to make a phone call. The union should have issued a statement condemning this and making it clear that these officers are pariahs. The silence is as deafening as it is mystifying.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Yes.
> 
> The thing I don't understand is, this kind of stuff makes every good cop's job that much harder--it builds distrust and undermines credibility and fosters stereotypes and makes it more difficult, I suspect, to do the job on a day-to-day basis--and there are way more good cops than there are bad cops. Why is it, then, that the good cops don't speak out against this? When the union can't be reached for comment or to see if the union is providing legal representation for this guy, and it's a safe bet that the reporter tried, that speaks volumes. The reporter shouldn't have even had to make a phone call. The union should have issued a statement condemning this and making it clear that these officers are pariahs. The silence is as deafening as it is mystifying.


Do you agree with this?

The thing I don't understand is, this kind of stuff makes every good Muslim's life that much harder--it builds distrust and undermines credibility and fosters stereotypes and makes it more difficult, I suspect, to do live your life on a day-to-day basis--and there are way more good Muslims than there are bad Muslims. Why is it, then, that the good Muslims don't speak out against this? When the Imams can't be reached for comment or to see if the mosques are providing legal representation for this guy, and it's a safe bet that the reporter tried, that speaks volumes. The reporter shouldn't have even had to make a phone call. The Imams should have issued a statement condemning this and making it clear that these types of Muslims are pariahs. The silence is as deafening as it is mystifying


----------



## 32rollandrock

I am ignoring you.



vpkozel said:


> Do you agree with this?
> 
> The thing I don't understand is, this kind of stuff makes every good Muslim's life that much harder--it builds distrust and undermines credibility and fosters stereotypes and makes it more difficult, I suspect, to do live your life on a day-to-day basis--and there are way more good Muslims than there are bad Muslims. Why is it, then, that the good Muslims don't speak out against this? When the Imams can't be reached for comment or to see if the mosques are providing legal representation for this guy, and it's a safe bet that the reporter tried, that speaks volumes. The reporter shouldn't have even had to make a phone call. The Imams should have issued a statement condemning this and making it clear that these types of Muslims are pariahs. The silence is as deafening as it is mystifying


----------



## Chouan

This article makes rather disturbing reading....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lice-killing-victims-unnamed-texas-california
as is this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/de-menezes-family-take-case-to-european-court


----------



## 32rollandrock

With regard to the first article, I'm not seeing anything that makes a slam-dunk case that police were in the wrong. I'm not familiar with what a "welding gun" looks like, but if it looks something like a firearm and the person was in the act of committing a crime, well, you have to consider the totality of the circumstances. Same with these other incidents.

What IS disturbing is the media's laziness these days when it comes to reporting the news, including police shootings. The police are under no legal obligation to tell the media when a cop shoots someone. Rather, it's up to the media to find out and to demand that the cops issue a press release whenever a cop shoots someone, regardless of whether the person lives or dies. The media still has some power to pressure cops to do the right thing, and this is a prime example.

Also, I'm not so much interested in the name of the person who was shot as the name, or names, of the officer(s) who pulled the trigger. More and more, police are refusing to disclose names of cops in police shootings. There is no good reason for this, in my opinion. The name of the officer is absolutely important, if for no other reason than to allow the public to make a reasoned judgment as to whether the officer in question has acted appropriately in the past. Furthermore, I would argue that it's a matter of law. A police officer, like a firefighter or a building inspector, is a public servant. What they do on the clock while they are being paid with public money is the public's business. In Illinois, state police within the past year have stopped releasing names of officers no matter what--it it's a police shooting, the name is blacked out in documents released to the public; if it's a traffic stop, the name is blacked out in documents released to the public; if it's a burglary case, the name is blacked out in documents released to the public. The explanation, flimsy, is that some people hate cops and so if the names became public, people who hate cops would hunt cops down and kill them. This ignores that the name of every police officer employed by the state is listed on the Internet in online salary databases posted by the state and broken down by agency--you can get names in a matter of seconds. The names are also in court records. And in documents released to criminals under rules of discovery. Refusing to release names, in my opinion, only builds an us vs. them mentality, both in departments and in the community. Officers cease to be individuals or human beings, they become "the police" and that thin blue line only gets bluer, with all cops, good or bad, thrown into the same barrel and regarded as either pigs or heroes, depending on your perspective.



Chouan said:


> This article makes rather disturbing reading....
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lice-killing-victims-unnamed-texas-california
> as is this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/de-menezes-family-take-case-to-european-court


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I am ignoring you.


That is probably the wisest course you could take - it prevents you from further exposing your bias.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> This article makes rather disturbing reading....
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lice-killing-victims-unnamed-texas-california
> as is this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/de-menezes-family-take-case-to-european-court


Disturbing how? They all had guns and apparently pointed them at the police.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Absolutely: Ignoring you is wise.



vpkozel said:


> That is probably the wisest course you could take - it prevents you from further exposing your bias.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Absolutely: Ignoring you is wise.


The irony of course being that what you want to ignore is your own statement.


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Disturbing how? They all had guns and apparently pointed them at the police.


The Brazilian didn't.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> The Brazilian didn't.


You folks across the pond should stop being so violent.


----------



## Acct2000

Veering into unacceptable catfight - - - -

All involved need to retract claws and just ignore each other if necessary.


----------



## vpkozel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Veering into unacceptable catfight - - - -
> 
> All involved need to retract claws and just ignore each other if necessary.


Since I am almost certainly involved in at least one of these catfights, I can promise you that none of my comments were intended as personal attacks.


----------



## 32rollandrock

And now we have this from McKinney (the link is the unedited version, which I think helps provide context):






Parsed and diced, as it will surely be, Officer Casebolt will be upheld and keep his job. There will be some sign somewhere that someone twitched in just the right way as to justify him pulling a gun, and the union will back him and an arbitrator, if it comes to that, will rule in his favor. There will be no charges brought. That does not mean that he was in the right, and thank goodness that no one was hurt. What strikes me, however, is the officer's repeated use of profanity through all of this. While this might seem a minor point, use of profanity is banned by virtually all law enforcement agencies. And here we have Officer Potty Mouth cursing up one side and down the other, apparently with full knowledge that his actions were being recorded.

This, to me, is an officer who has lost his cool and is out of control. All the civilians here are much calmer than the person who has been called to keep the peace. When he pulls his gun, the other officers react as if they know that he's gone too far. Good for them.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone

Returning to the topic of Bodymore, the city has triumphed with the announcement of 43* homicides in a single month. This is a record unless one goes back many years, and from what I gather the city then had a noticeably higher population, so in per capita terms could this be an all time high? Whatever the case, I am sure the inhabitants of the city, and indeed of the whole state of Murderland, are very proud.

Just see what can be accomplished when the population is not so heavily policed and oppressed by the agents of white supremacy - the black President, the black AG, the black congressman, the black mayor, the black police chief, the half-black police force.

Now, if only Baltimore could see some proper investment, instead of the measly $1.8 billion handed out under the 'stimulus', it would be a veritable paradise. 

I for for one confidently predict a peaceful summer for the city under the new and very welcome light touch policing regime.

*Massaged down to 42.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> And now we have this from McKinney (the link is the unedited version, which I think helps provide context):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parsed and diced, as it will surely be, Officer Casebolt will be upheld and keep his job. There will be some sign somewhere that someone twitched in just the right way as to justify him pulling a gun, and the union will back him and an arbitrator, if it comes to that, will rule in his favor. There will be no charges brought. That does not mean that he was in the right, and thank goodness that no one was hurt. What strikes me, however, is the officer's repeated use of profanity through all of this. While this might seem a minor point, use of profanity is banned by virtually all law enforcement agencies. And here we have Officer Potty Mouth cursing up one side and down the other, apparently with full knowledge that his actions were being recorded.
> 
> This, to me, is an officer who has lost his cool and is out of control. All the civilians here are much calmer than the person who has been called to keep the peace. When he pulls his gun, the other officers react as if they know that he's gone too far. Good for them.


My view also.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> And now we have this from McKinney (the link is the unedited version, which I think helps provide context):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parsed and diced, as it will surely be, Officer Casebolt will be upheld and keep his job. There will be some sign somewhere that someone twitched in just the right way as to justify him pulling a gun, and the union will back him and an arbitrator, if it comes to that, will rule in his favor. There will be no charges brought. That does not mean that he was in the right, and thank goodness that no one was hurt. What strikes me, however, is the officer's repeated use of profanity through all of this. While this might seem a minor point, use of profanity is banned by virtually all law enforcement agencies. And here we have Officer Potty Mouth cursing up one side and down the other, apparently with full knowledge that his actions were being recorded.
> 
> This, to me, is an officer who has lost his cool and is out of control. All the civilians here are much calmer than the person who has been called to keep the peace. When he pulls his gun, the other officers react as if they know that he's gone too far. Good for them.





Chouan said:


> My view also.


Likewise. Police officers have nothing to fear from aggressive bystanders when they are trying to make an arrest.

I mean, who would be crazy enough to attack a police officer when he is discharging his duties.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Did you see anyone attacking a police officer here? Did you see anything justifying use of deadly force (and yes, unholstering a firearm qualifies as use of deadly force)?

It was a party grown unruly. Nothing more, nothing less. And, for the record, the girl was not arrested. They had no basis on which to arrest her.



SG_67 said:


> Likewise. Police officers have nothing to fear from aggressive bystanders when they are trying to make an arrest.
> 
> I mean, who would be crazy enough to attack a police officer when he is discharging his duties.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> Did you see anyone attacking a police officer here? Did you see anything justifying use of deadly force (and yes, unholstering a firearm qualifies as use of deadly force)?
> 
> It was a party grown unruly. Nothing more, nothing less. And, for the record, the girl was not arrested. They had no basis on which to arrest her.


It looks, to me, like a bloke excessively pumped up with adrenalin. What was the forward roll for?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Did you see anything justifying use of deadly force (and yes, unholstering a firearm qualifies as use of deadly force)?


You really do have a gift for messing up good points by taking incredibly outlandish statements.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> It looks, to me, like a bloke excessively pumped up with adrenalin. What was the forward roll for?


Yep. And I totally agree on the roll. The first time I saw the clip, I thought it was a parody.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I am ignoring you. Again.



vpkozel said:


> You really do have a gift for messing up good points by taking incredibly outlandish statements.


----------



## Dmontez

Okay guys on this McKinney thing, it is painfully obvious that the officer did not use a "tactical roll" while giving chase, but rather he tripped while trying to maneuver through the crowd since right before the roll at 2 seconds in you hear him yell "move, move" and then fall, it is even confirmed by the people recording at 24 seconds you hear "this n***a fell" at 39 seconds an officer tells a group of people "don't take off running when the cops get here" truer words have never been said. If you did nothing wrong then during the investigation you will be cleared. If you run from the police, you will be arrested and no amount of "officer I didn't do anything wrong" is going to get you out of that. 

At 1:32 the people on the ground say "sir we just came here for a birthday party, please" he tells them "we will figure it out in a little bit" again that is because they were called out for a reason and need to get to them bottom of it. If when they get to the scene and you run away they are going to assume you are running for a reason, and you will be detained until they figure out what happened. If you did nothing wrong, but you ran away when the police got there, guess what you can still go to jail.

at 3:03 if you really think he had no reason to draw his weapon then bless your little heart. If you do not think that the guys in the tank-top, and navy t-shirt are acting aggressively towards the officer, then again bless your little heart. I thought up until 3:15 when he actually draws his weapon that the two guys were going to attack. 

at 6:38 he starts talking to two guys who are sitting down, who tell him "sir we just got here" to which the officer replies "I told you to get on the ground and stay there" the guy responds "yes you did sir" he then asks "when I walked away what did you do" to which the guy responds "we just did what everyone else did" to which the officer responds "what everyone else did was illegal, (running away) and now you two are paying for it" 

I don't know who was formally arrested, but if they let any of those people go without being booked for resisting arrest, and or evading arrest then those are some of the luckiest people ever.

I've been seeing a lot of coverage about the police targeting black people in this video, but if I understand correctly they were originally called to the scene for disturbance which was caused by "younger people" I don't know about you, but I didn't see any young people in this video that were not black. There is a gentleman in the video who is older and black, but he was not being detained, because they were not called out for 40 something black male, and he likely did not run away when the police showed up. It also seems as they were only detaining people who were evading, or resisting. 

I think the most important, and most telling part of this video is at 3:08 when he is dealing with someone who is resisting and a crowd swarms the officer. He is not able to see into the future that none of the 8-10 people who came up to him quickly will not attack him. He must control the crowd. The only way to get those people away was to draw his weapon, and you can see that one of the guys ran at that point, and was then arrested. I truly believe that the two guys who came up on the officers right side would have attacked the officer had he not drawn his weapon.


----------



## Chouan

I'm afraid that if was a young black person and armed police came charging in like that my response would also be to run, *especially*, if I hadn't done anything wrong!


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> I'm afraid that if was a young black person and armed police came charging in like that *my response would also be to run, especially, if I hadn't done anything wrong!*


You do realize that this is the reason the officer was "charging" he was giving chase to people who ran. That is illegal, and will get you in trouble even if you did nothing else wrong.

What specifically makes you want to run from the police if you are innocent of any wrong doing?

Also, we don't know what happened before that video started, but I assume that police vehicles showed up, and people started running. As evidenced from what the police officer told the guys in the original video at 39 seconds.


----------



## SG_67

We don't know what happened before the video started to roll. Keep in mind the residents called for the police as their was disruptive activity occurring at this community pool. People were complaining of loud music with vulgar lyrics and it a general disturbance of peace. 

Why did people run? What did the young lady who was at the center of the video do? We only see snippets of it. 

The police officer drew his gun as he had his back turned when 2 people moved aggressively toward him. 

This was in the Dallas Morning News and at least offers a bit of a fuller picture:


----------



## Acct2000

Another perspective on McKinney, TX

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-pool-mob-inside-the-craig-ranch-subdivision/

Lately, people seem to be very selectively editing reports of events like this to support their agenda - - left or right. It's important not to get dragged in by the first video you see - - which may be edited or selectively drawn. Many times you don't see how the event started.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The more I think about this, the more I am reminded of the movie "Do The Right Thing," the point being, the "right thing" is nigh impossible to discern in the heat of the moment. This said...

I think that the link provides some excellent information, including the critique of Officer Casebolt's actions, which mirror my criticisms. The best cops, by their actions and demeanor, project authority and gravity onto almost any given situation. And that's crucial. You can't control a situation if you appear out of control. Here, we have an officer who is acting like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off. He seems to have lost sight of the objective, which is, as I understand it, to shut down a party and defuse a situation. He didn't defuse anything. By his actions and demeanor, he escalated a situation. Was he justified in drawing his weapon? Likely, yes.at least under a strict reading of use-of-force policies. But that does not mean that it was a wise thing for him to do. Other officers who were present saw no need to draw their firearms. Indeed, they appear to have acted as voices of reason as they approach Casebolt and appear, via body language at least, to say "Hey, calm down." And he puts the gun down.

Let's not lose sight of a basic fact: It was a freakin' pool party with people in bathing suits. No indication that anyone was armed. No indication of any kind of criminal activity whatsoever aside from uninvited-guest beefs. And, end of day, just one person--one--was arrested. That says to me that this was much ado about not very much. The only thing the cops had to fear here was fear itself.



SG_67 said:


> We don't know what happened before the video started to roll. Keep in mind the residents called for the police as their was disruptive activity occurring at this community pool. People were complaining of loud music with vulgar lyrics and it a general disturbance of peace.
> 
> Why did people run? What did the young lady who was at the center of the video do? We only see snippets of it.
> 
> The police officer drew his gun as he had his back turned when 2 people moved aggressively toward him.
> 
> This was in the Dallas Morning News and at least offers a bit of a fuller picture:


----------



## SG_67

^ Breitbart and PJ media shed a bit of light on it as well but I knew if I sourced them I'd get flamed for repeating stuff from a right wing website. 

I realize in the current climate it's very fashionable to jump to conclusions and assume the worst when it comes to white police officers and minorities but more often than not there's more the story. 

Apparently the crowd was out of control and the security guard charged with maintaining order felt overwhelmed. This was private property and not a public pool and as such the owners had every right to restrict access and to ask those who were uninvited to leave.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Good point. Which is why the link I posted is the unedited video that lasts nearly nine minutes.

Sorry, but it's just not good policing. Casebolt needs to go back to the academy.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Another perspective on McKinney, TX
> 
> https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-pool-mob-inside-the-craig-ranch-subdivision/
> 
> Lately, people seem to be very selectively editing reports of events like this to support their agenda - - left or right. It's important not to get dragged in by the first video you see - - which may be edited or selectively drawn. Many times you don't see how the event started.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Yes, the security guard felt overwhelmed and called 911. I don't think that this was private property per se. Rather, it's my understanding that the pool facilities were open for use by nearby residents and invited guests. Yes, there were uninvited guests. No, you don't handle uninvited-guest complaints like this.



SG_67 said:


> ^ Breitbart and PJ media shed a bit of light on it as well but I knew if I sourced them I'd get flamed for repeating stuff from a right wing website.
> 
> I realize in the current climate it's very fashionable to jump to conclusions and assume the worst when it comes to white police officers and minorities but more often than not there's more the story.
> 
> Apparently the crowd was out of control and the security guard charged with maintaining order felt overwhelmed. This was private property and not a public pool and as such the owners had every right to restrict access and to ask those who were uninvited to leave.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> The more I think about this, the more I am reminded of the movie "Do The Right Thing," the point being, the "right thing" is nigh impossible to discern in the heat of the moment. This said...
> 
> I think that the link provides some excellent information, including the critique of Officer Casebolt's actions, which mirror my criticisms. The best cops, by their actions and demeanor, project authority and gravity onto almost any given situation. And that's crucial. You can't control a situation if you appear out of control. Here, we have an officer who is acting like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off. He seems to have lost sight of the objective, which is, as I understand it, to shut down a party and defuse a situation. He didn't defuse anything. By his actions and demeanor, he escalated a situation. Was he justified in drawing his weapon? Likely, yes.at least under a strict reading of use-of-force policies. But that does not mean that it was a wise thing for him to do. Other officers who were present saw no need to draw their firearms. Indeed, they appear to have acted as voices of reason as they approach Casebolt and appear, via body language at least, to say "Hey, calm down." And he puts the gun down.
> 
> Let's not lose sight of a basic fact: It was a freakin' pool party with people in bathing suits. No indication that anyone was armed. No indication of any kind of criminal activity whatsoever aside from uninvited-guest beefs. And, end of day, just one person--one--was arrested. That says to me that this was much ado about not very much. The only thing the cops had to fear here was fear itself.


You say acting like a chicken with his head cut off, but he was reacting to the situation as he saw it. I don't recall him shooting anyone and one could say that he was trying to use overwhelming force in order to control the situation.

He had no clue as to who these folks were and as far as he knows he was responding to a call in which there were a large number of people causing a disturbance. I'd say he acted quite calmly given how people were crowding around him while he was trying to subdue the young lady.

You have a preconceived notion of how these situations unfold and so your narrative and your interpretation are such that they conform to this.

This was indeed a pool party where there were trespassers and where the local security guard was unable to control the situation. God knows the verbal abuse he probably endured in trying to do this. Bathing suits or not, the officer had know way of knowing the hostility of the crowd or if anyone may be carrying weapons. Let's see how you react when something like this happens in your neighborhood.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Yes, the security guard felt overwhelmed and called 911. I don't think that this was private property per se. Rather, *it's my understanding that the pool facilities were open for use by nearby residents and invited guests. Yes, there were uninvited guests.* No, you don't handle uninvited-guest complaints like this.


It was private property if the pool was a common area of the home owners association. Many communities have such facilities and one must be a resident to use the facility. It's not a public pool.

Uninvited guests are trespassers. If I'm carjacked, the perpetrator is not an uninvited passenger. This was more than just someone trying to sneak into a pool. This was, what appears to be, a flash mob. Do you realize how many stories lead the local news in Chicago with "a house party turns deadly when shots were fired"?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Ever see the television show Cops? I used to watch it a fair amount. And I've also done ride-along's with police. What amazes me, both in watching TV and watching stuff in person, is how incredibly professional officers behave in the midst of mayhem. They don't know what's going on when they roll up on any given scene. They don't know who's telling the truth and who's lying, who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. But they act as if they know everything. They exude a calming influence--OK, you go stand over there, you stand over here, you go there and you go here. In short, they react, using your own words, to the situation as they see it. They do not act like this guy. If you think this guy was acting "quite calmly," due respect, but I would suggest that you make an appointment with an eye doctor. The best cops use their heads and verbal skills first. If those fail them and it becomes necessary, they resort to force. This guy used force first. Nothing in this nine-minute (and that's a long time) video suggests that Officer Casebolt has any verbal skills or intelligence needed to calm a situation involving unwanted guests at a swimming party.

Cops put up with abuse on a daily basis. It's in the job description. They are well-compensated for doing so. You cannot justify poor policing by saying "Well, the people on the scene weren't being nice to the cop." That makes no sense whatsoever.

There is a reason that Casebolt was put on admin leave. And it ain't political.



SG_67 said:


> You say acting like a chicken with his head cut off, but he was reacting to the situation as he saw it. I don't recall him shooting anyone and one could say that he was trying to use overwhelming force in order to control the situation.
> 
> He had no clue as to who these folks were and as far as he knows he was responding to a call in which there were a large number of people causing a disturbance. I'd say he acted quite calmly given how people were crowding around him while he was trying to subdue the young lady.
> 
> You have a preconceived notion of how these situations unfold and so your narrative and your interpretation are such that they conform to this.
> 
> This was indeed a pool party where there were trespassers and where the local security guard was unable to control the situation. God knows the verbal abuse he probably endured in trying to do this. Bathing suits or not, the officer had know way of knowing the hostility of the crowd or if anyone may be carrying weapons. Let's see how you react when something like this happens in your neighborhood.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Oh, come on. No shots were fired. Quit trying to turn this in to Chiraq.

Your explanation of the pool's status seems accurate to me. So what? It's still a party that got out of hand, not a riot. Deal with the event as it was, not as a series of what-if scenarios.



SG_67 said:


> It was private property if the pool was a common area of the home owners association. Many communities have such facilities and one must be a resident to use the facility. It's not a public pool.
> 
> Uninvited guests are trespassers. If I'm carjacked, the perpetrator is not an uninvited passenger. This was more than just someone trying to sneak into a pool. This was, what appears to be, a flash mob. Do you realize how many stories lead the local news in Chicago with "a house party turns deadly when shots were fired"?


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> There is a reason that Casebolt was put on admin leave. And it ain't political.


I believe it was entirely political. They put him on administrative leave and hopefully the media finds something else to move on to until he is put back on active duty. It is the only thing that his superiors could do. I believe that if he were on active duty the McKinney PD would be receiving death threats for the officer, or all of their officers.

If you pay close attention to the video the officer swarmed by 8-10 people with two guys going around his back right side. He moves so that they are in front of him when he draws his weapon, and they run. This is when the other two officers come up to him, and the officer actually believes that the officer that touched him is part of the mob, and then he let's those two know that he had two run, and one with a possible weapon while holstering his own. The other two officers go get him and bring him back cuffed.

One of the biggest problems i've seen is that people think the officer drew his weapon on the girl in the bikini, which is just false.


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, come on. No shots were fired. Quit trying to turn this in to Chiraq.
> 
> Your explanation of the pool's status seems accurate to me. So what? It's still a party that got out of hand, not a riot. Deal with the event as it was, not as a series of what-if scenarios.


The thing you don't seem to comprehend is that an officer must approach things every time as a "what-if-scenario" Everything turned out okay this time, but had he not drew his weapon on the two guy's who came around his back side and one of them would have attacked him, and gotten his weapon away we would be looking at a completely different scenario.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, come on. No shots were fired. Quit trying to turn this in to Chiraq.QUOTE]
> 
> How is a police officer supposed to know? I'm sure folks going to a house party aren't expecting gunfire either.
> 
> Police aren't trained to make assumptions. Their lives depend on being aware and anticipating the worst and being vigilant. It wasn't a riot but sometimes riots and truly violent situations start as just some people getting "out of hand".


----------



## 32rollandrock

Dmontez said:


> The thing you don't seem to comprehend is that an officer must approach things every time as a "what-if-scenario" Everything turned out okay this time, but had he not drew his weapon on the two guy's who came around his back side and one of them would have attacked him, and gotten his weapon away we would be looking at a completely different scenario.


Of course cops have to look at things from a what-if perspective. They also have to consider if-then scenarios. From an if-then perspective, Casebolt did not act wisely. He has clearly lost his temper--that, if nothing else, is something that a cop shouldn't do when trying to gain control of a situation. His use of profanity was inexcusable and only inflamed the situation.

Like I say, Casebolt's actions will be diced and parsed, as you have done, to the point that what he did will emerge as justifiable. Stupid, but justifiable. There is a difference.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> There is a reason that Casebolt was put on admin leave. And it ain't political.


Most departments put officers on administrative leave when there is any type of investigation. It allows them to take a course of action without any appearance of a judgment.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Most departments put officers on administrative leave when there is any type of investigation. It allows them to take a course of action without any appearance of a judgment.


They put you on admin leave if there's a bona fide belief that the charges might be true. Every accusation is supposed to be investigated, but they don't put everyone on admin leave who has been accused. If that were the case, there wouldn't be enough cops on duty to fill shifts.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> They put you on admin leave if there's a bona fide belief that the charges might be true. Every accusation is supposed to be investigated, but they don't put everyone on admin leave who has been accused. If that were the case, there wouldn't be enough cops on duty to fill shifts.


I thought you were ignoring me :happy:

I don't think that most departments have an automatic leave policy for investigations. Do you have info supporting that they have to believe the charges are true to trigger it?


----------



## 32rollandrock

They don't have to necessarily believe that the charges are true, but there has to be a belief that there is a substantial likelihood that they are true. Again, cops get accused of stuff on a near-daily basis. If they put everyone on admin leave who was accused, it would be a cop's wet dream, given that most complaints aren't upheld. It would amount to a paid vacation every time a cop got accused of misconduct, and IA investigations, even for simple things, can last for weeks. You'd have cops begging to be the subject of IA investigations. Heck, you'd have cops accusing each other of misconduct, and thanking each other when accusations were made.



vpkozel said:


> I thought you were ignoring me :happy:
> 
> I don't think that most departments have an automatic leave policy for investigations. Do you have info supporting that they have to believe the charges are true to trigger it?


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> They put you on admin leave if there's a bona fide belief that the charges might be true. Every accusation is supposed to be investigated, but they don't put everyone on admin leave who has been accused. If that were the case, there wouldn't be enough cops on duty to fill shifts.


Not necessarily. The officer will likely have a lot on his mind and if he's distracted from his duties, or reluctant to engage it may pose a threat to the public, himself and/or his partner. Each occurrence occurs according to it's own set of circumstances.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Not necessarily. The officer will likely have a lot on his mind and if he's distracted from his duties, or reluctant to engage it may pose a threat to the public, himself and/or his partner. Each occurrence occurs according to it's own set of circumstances.


Agreed, it does depend on circumstances. And some departments are different than others. Some departments, for example, will put an officer on admin leave after he/she shoots someone no matter what until the initial investigation is complete. Others will put an officer right back on the street. I'm not a cop, but I think that the former practice seems wise. If you've shot and killed someone, even if they had it coming, taking a few days off to process and, for lack of a better word, decompress seems like a good idea. And because it's done for everyone, there's no stigma attached.

Meanwhile, looks like the McKinney police chief agrees with me:

During the news conference, Chief Conley said that the actions of Officer Casebolt had been "indefensible."
"He came into the call out of control," the chief said, and remained out of control during the entire episode. Chief Conley said that 11 of the 12 officers who responded to the pool disturbance followed their training and "did exactly what we wanted them to do."

Didn't expect him to resign, but I think it's a good thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Il Signor Crispone

Tommy Sotomayor has as usual an interesting take on the situation:


----------



## Il Signor Crispone

Another take on the gun drawing:


----------



## Acct2000

Casebolt has resigned. This seems like a decent outcome. The people who are trying to hack into the McKinney police department and trying to escalate this are as wrong as Casebolt was.


----------



## 32rollandrock

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Casebolt has resigned. This seems like a decent outcome. The people who are trying to hack into the McKinney police department and trying to escalate this are as wrong as Casebolt was.


I found the result encouraging and refreshing. The chief's public remarks were good. Perhaps we're making some progress. I think that if he had fought to keep his job with union backing, he would have kept his job. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. It was nice to see common sense prevail.


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> I found the result encouraging and refreshing. The chief's public remarks were good. Perhaps we're making some progress. I think that if he had fought to keep his job with union backing, he would have kept his job. For whatever reason, that didn't happen. It was nice to see common sense prevail.


And this is where you, and I will disagree. I know what the chief came out, and said publicly, but I do not believe he meant it. For me this was more "here is what the people who are threatening the lives of our residents want to hear, so we will give it to them" It really was the easy way out.

Common sense prevailing would have been parents teaching their children not to interfere with an officer performing his duty. 
Common sense prevailing would have been people not running away as soon as the police show up. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. 
Common sense prevailing would have been not needing the police to show up in the first place.

I do agree that if he had fought to keep his job, he would still have it. I think this was a decision made by a few people the officer included basically thinking that they do not want protests, and riots, so lets just tell them what they want to hear.

The people who understand that the officer was just performing his duties are not radical people who would march for months on end and incite violence because the officer quit, but the people who are making death threats absolutely would march, and incite violence if the officer was not fired.


----------



## Acct2000

I'm not a fan of the left side of this, but the fact that the other officers on the scene weren't letting their emotions go haywire makes me question this officer at least some.


----------



## vpkozel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm not a fan of the left side of this, but the fact that the other officers on the scene weren't letting their emotions go haywire makes me question this officer at least some.


That is where I am on this as well. My only issue is people who want to take this example and extrapolate it to all other bad police behavior. Each situation is absolutely unique and requires split second decisions and you are never going to be perfect. That just ain't the way this stuff works.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> That is where I am on this as well. My only issue is people who want to take this example and extrapolate it to all other bad police behavior. Each situation is absolutely unique and requires split second decisions and you are never going to be perfect. That just ain't the way this stuff works.


Yes but don't you know that that type of thinking is not fashionable?


----------



## Acct2000

I'm a huge non-fan of the left's idea that it's cool to pepper the cop with death threats, etc.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Face facts: The chief said what he said. Police officers are trained to always back each other unless there is a very good reason not to do so. He didn't back this officer. The union, by all appearances, didn't back this officer. This officer's actions were in diametric opposition to the actions of other officers (there were more than ten) who responded to this call.

The obvious conclusion--the only conclusion that makes sense--is that this officer, by virtue of his behavior, was an outlier to such an extent that he was disowned by the organization that employed him. To say that none of this would happen if people behaved themselves is irrelevant. We employ police exactly because people do not behave themselves. That is no excuse for police to not behave themselves. To argue otherwise evokes images of the playground, where two misbehaving kids point at each and say "He started it!" Police are supposed to be the adults in the room. This officer was anything but.



Dmontez said:


> And this is where you, and I will disagree. I know what the chief came out, and said publicly, but I do not believe he meant it. For me this was more "here is what the people who are threatening the lives of our residents want to hear, so we will give it to them" It really was the easy way out.
> 
> Common sense prevailing would have been parents teaching their children not to interfere with an officer performing his duty.
> Common sense prevailing would have been people not running away as soon as the police show up. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of.
> Common sense prevailing would have been not needing the police to show up in the first place.
> 
> I do agree that if he had fought to keep his job, he would still have it. I think this was a decision made by a few people the officer included basically thinking that they do not want protests, and riots, so lets just tell them what they want to hear.
> 
> The people who understand that the officer was just performing his duties are not radical people who would march for months on end and incite violence because the officer quit, but the people who are making death threats absolutely would march, and incite violence if the officer was not fired.


----------



## 32rollandrock

It is very true that all situations are unique and split-second decisions are often imperfect. But there comes a point where split-second decisions, despite being made in haste, have to be defensible. If they are not defensible, then the person who is making bad split-second decisions needs to find other employment that does not require making split-second decisions in scenarios where the stakes are often a matter of life or death. So many times, folks who defend bad cops say, "Well, put yourself in the cop's shoes." I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning. I am not a cop, nor could I be a cop. It is a job for which I am ill suited.

What's good--and somewhat unusual--about this McKinney case is that, so far as I know, other cops didn't rush to this cop's defense. All too often, that is what happens, and that is, I think, what leads folks to extrapolate a few examples to all other police behavior, and The Police become somewhat monolithic, which is a bad thing. I think that the Eric Garner case is, perhaps, the best example. While there were no charges filed, it is difficult to see that video and defend the actions of the police. And yet, some people continue to defend the actions of the police in that case. Even on this board, some have defended or excused the actions of Chicago cops who posed, trophy hunter style, for a Polaroid with an African American suspect. That behavior is simply inexcusable, but somehow people excuse it, not the least being police unions and other cops who remain silent, or provide legal help to wrongdoers, when they see things like this when they should be publicly condemning it. But I think that police have used up a lot of, for lack of better word, political capital, and credibility. I don't think that cops are getting the benefit of the doubt to the extent that they once did, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But someone's status as a police officer should not insulate them from accountability.



vpkozel said:


> That is where I am on this as well. My only issue is people who want to take this example and extrapolate it to all other bad police behavior. Each situation is absolutely unique and requires split second decisions and you are never going to be perfect. That just ain't the way this stuff works.


----------



## Chouan

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm a huge non-fan of the left's idea that it's cool to pepper the cop with death threats, etc.


Does "The Left" think it "cool" so to do?


----------



## Chouan

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm not a fan of the left side of this, but the fact that the other officers on the scene weren't letting their emotions go haywire makes me question this officer at least some.


Indeed. You have one policeman who is clearly "out of control" and several others who are clearly acting calmly. If the "out of control" armed policeman can't keep himself under control he shouldn't be a policeman. It doesn't matter what he's done that day, or what he's seen or how he's feeling. If an armed policeman can't keep himself under control he/she shouldn't be a policeman.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> .....or provide legal help to wrongdoers.....


I'll take exception to this statement. No one is a wrongdoer until convicted (assuming a criminal trial is the appropriate disposition). Everyone, and I mean everyone, is entitlement to a legal defense and representation. It's the basis of common law. Otherwise, we're no different than North Korea or China.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> It is very true that all situations are unique and split-second decisions are often imperfect. But there comes a point where split-second decisions, despite being made in haste, have to be defensible. If they are not defensible, then the person who is making bad split-second decisions needs to find other employment that does not require making split-second decisions in scenarios where the stakes are often a matter of life or death.* So many times, folks who defend bad cops say, "Well, put yourself in the cop's shoes." I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning. I am not a cop, nor could I be a cop. It is a job for which I am ill suited.
> *
> What's good--and somewhat unusual--about this McKinney case is that, so far as I know, other cops didn't rush to this cop's defense. All too often, that is what happens, and that is, I think, what leads folks to extrapolate a few examples to all other police behavior, and The Police become somewhat monolithic, which is a bad thing. I think that the Eric Garner case is, perhaps, the best example. While there were no charges filed, it is difficult to see that video and defend the actions of the police. And yet, some people continue to defend the actions of the police in that case. Even on this board, some have defended or excused the actions of Chicago cops who posed, trophy hunter style, for a Polaroid with an African American suspect. That behavior is simply inexcusable, but somehow people excuse it, not the least being police unions and other cops who remain silent, or provide legal help to wrongdoers, when they see things like this when they should be publicly condemning it. But I think that police have used up a lot of, for lack of better word, political capital, and credibility. I don't think that cops are getting the benefit of the doubt to the extent that they once did, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But someone's status as a police officer should not insulate them from accountability.


Excellent points, very well made.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Excellent points, very well made.


Not really. He's already predicating his argument on the fact that a given action is bad, or at least the cop is bad.

If a cop is on the take or otherwise corrupt, I don't think anyone is going to make the argument about being in the cop's shoes. Most of these things occur in gray areas though where quick decision making is required within a very fluid, and often dangerous situation. Sometimes cops get it wrong, but that's a far cry from being a "Bad Cop".


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Not really. He's already predicating his argument on the fact that a given action is bad, or at least the cop is bad.
> 
> If a cop is on the take or otherwise corrupt, I don't think anyone is going to make the argument about being in the cop's shoes. Most of these things occur in gray areas though where quick decision making is required within a very fluid, and often dangerous situation. Sometimes cops get it wrong, but that's a far cry from being a "Bad Cop".


No, he isn't, actually. He is suggesting that too often a false argument is offered that the policeman is somehow not subject to normal rules, or that the policeman has stresses that we don't, and that we can't criticise because we haven't done that job. These are valid points and were well made.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> No, he isn't, actually. He is suggesting that too often a false argument is offered that the policeman is somehow not subject to normal rules, or that the policeman has stresses that we don't, and that we can't criticise because we haven't done that job. These are valid points and were well made.


It's a Straw Man. No one says police officers aren't above criticism. Certainly no one is implying that police officers aren't subject to the laws they enforce.

As for the stresses of the job, I would argue few of us risk death on a daily basis for nothing more than showing up for work. There is certainly stress, but no one is saying that is an excuse for illegal behavior.

No one, that is, except for 32RR.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Huh? You have totally lost me. I never said or even insinuated such a thing. Chillax.



SG_67 said:


> It's a Straw Man. No one says police officers aren't above criticism. Certainly no one is implying that police officers aren't subject to the laws they enforce.
> 
> As for the stresses of the job, I would argue few of us risk death on a daily basis for nothing more than showing up for work. There is certainly stress, but no one is saying that is an excuse for illegal behavior.
> 
> No one, that is, except for 32RR.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> It is very true that all situations are unique and split-second decisions are often imperfect. But there comes a point where split-second decisions, despite being made in haste, have to be defensible. If they are not defensible, then the person who is making bad split-second decisions needs to find other employment that does not require making split-second decisions in scenarios where the stakes are often a matter of life or death. So many times, folks who defend bad cops say, "Well, put yourself in the cop's shoes." I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning. I am not a cop, nor could I be a cop. It is a job for which I am ill suited.


That has nothing at all to do with what I said.



> What's good--and somewhat unusual--about this McKinney case is that, so far as I know, other cops didn't rush to this cop's defense. All too often, that is what happens, and that is, I think, what leads folks to extrapolate a few examples to all other police behavior, and The Police become somewhat monolithic, which is a bad thing. I think that the Eric Garner case is, perhaps, the best example. While there were no charges filed, it is difficult to see that video and defend the actions of the police. And yet, some people continue to defend the actions of the police in that case. Even on this board, some have defended or excused the actions of Chicago cops who posed, trophy hunter style, for a Polaroid with an African American suspect. That behavior is simply inexcusable, but somehow people excuse it, not the least being police unions and other cops who remain silent, or provide legal help to wrongdoers, when they see things like this when they should be publicly condemning it. But I think that police have used up a lot of, for lack of better word, political capital, and credibility. I don't think that cops are getting the benefit of the doubt to the extent that they once did, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But someone's status as a police officer should not insulate them from accountability.


Somewhat unusual? Please. Police and police departments doing the right things isn't unusual at all. Of course, it also doesn't allow for pushing agendas via extrapolation.

In the other cases, are you sure that folks on this board were defending the actions, or just not agreeing with your police rant of the day?

I am curious though - in the Garner case, what would you have had the police do?


----------



## vpkozel

Back to the actual topic of this thread though - does anyone know why the police were actively patrolling the area where they encountered Freddie Gray? And why they might have wanted to speak with someone with his background?


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> That has nothing at all to do with what I said.
> 
> Somewhat unusual? Please. Police and police departments doing the right things isn't unusual at all. Of course, it also doesn't allow for pushing agendas via extrapolation.
> 
> In the other cases, are you sure that folks on this board were defending the actions, or just not agreeing with your police rant of the day?
> 
> I am curious though - in the Garner case, what would you have had the police do?


In the Garner case, when he said that he couldn't breathe, they should have gotten off the top of him. He was obese and prone with at least one officer on his back (not a good combination) and lots more standing in close proximity to prevent him from fleeing. He hadn't threatened anyone and he was no danger to anyone with the possible exception of store owners with whom he competed for cigarette sales.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Back to the actual topic of this thread though - does anyone know why the police were actively patrolling the area where they encountered Freddie Gray? And why they might have wanted to speak with someone with his background?


They were patrolling the area because it was a high-crime area and needed a police presence to help keep the peace and prevent crime.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> They were patrolling the area because it was a high-crime area and needed a police presence to help keep the peace and prevent crime.


And who requested the police do that? And if that was their stated reason for being there, doesn't that change the entire narrative of "why did they chase him when he ran?"


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> In the Garner case, when he said that he couldn't breathe, they should have gotten off the top of him. He was obese and prone with at least one officer on his back (not a good combination) and lots more standing in close proximity to prevent him from fleeing. He hadn't threatened anyone and he was no danger to anyone with the possible exception of store owners with whom he competed for cigarette sales.


He was continuing to speak and as anyone who has ever learned the Heimlich will tell you, if someone can speak, then they can breathe. But are police now supposed to just take suspects' word for things?

At what point do we ever get to the fact that if Garner had just listened to the police he never would have been in that position?

As for the not needing to be in their shoes position and extrapolation - is that something you will be consistent on when applied to anyone? Because you certainly don't like it when I take one of your criticisms and change only the group you aimed it at.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> S*o many times, folks who defend bad cops say, "Well, put yourself in the cop's shoes." I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning.*





32rollandrock said:


> Huh? You have totally lost me. I never said or even insinuated such a thing. Chillax.


As I said, when you premise it on someone already being a bad cop, and people's said defense of bad cop then shoot it down, it is the very definition of a Straw Man argument.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Sorry, still not following you. Really.



SG_67 said:


> As I said, when you premise it on someone already being a bad cop, and people's said defense of bad cop then shoot it down, it is the very definition of a Straw Man argument.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I have asthma. I've had some pretty bad asthma attacks. I could still breathe but barely. The fact that is now dead would suggest that, in fact, he wasn't joking when he told the cops that he couldn't breathe.



vpkozel said:


> He was continuing to speak and as anyone who has ever learned the Heimlich will tell you, if someone can speak, then they can breathe. But are police now supposed to just take suspects' word for things?
> 
> At what point do we ever get to the fact that if Garner had just listened to the police he never would have been in that position?
> 
> As for the not needing to be in their shoes position and extrapolation - is that something you will be consistent on when applied to anyone? Because you certainly don't like it when I take one of your criticisms and change only the group you aimed it at.


----------



## 32rollandrock

The police were doing that because that is their job. People who live in high-crime areas don't like crime any more than you or I.

And no, it doesn't change the narrative.

It's pretty clear that you like to argue just for the sake of argument. If I pointed to my dog and said "That's a pug," you would say "No, it's a poodle." I don't particularly like to discuss things with people whose only goal is to argue. It's a waste of time. On occasion, there is some pretty good debate here and folks find themselves agreeing, at least once in awhile, on stuff that they wouldn't expect to agree on. It's pretty cool, I think, when that happens. But endless argument and provocation?

No.



vpkozel said:


> And who requested the police do that? And if that was their stated reason for being there, doesn't that change the entire narrative of "why did they chase him when he ran?"


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, still not following you. Really.


Who is defending bad cops? And who defines bad? You. You make an unqualified statement like "bad cops" and then decide who fits in that category.

Then you go on to say "people who defend bad cops (according to you) often say....". Where is this occurring? No one is defending bad cops.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> The police were doing that because that is their job. People who live in high-crime areas don't like crime any more than you or I.


Of course they don't like crime, but that has nothing to do with the events. They were apparently ordered there - care to guess by whom? Get his 40 time?



> It's pretty clear that you like to argue just for the sake of argument. If I pointed to my dog and said "That's a pug," you would say "No, it's a poodle." I don't particularly like to discuss things with people whose only goal is to argue. It's a waste of time. On occasion, there is some pretty good debate here and folks find themselves agreeing, at least once in awhile, on stuff that they wouldn't expect to agree on. It's pretty cool, I think, when that happens. But endless argument and provocation?
> 
> No.


I am not really arguing anything, because we don't know all of the facts yet, but the fact that you seem to think that situations where you make big pronouncements are as cut and dried as what type of dog you have is telling.

The true measure of an idea or belief is does it stay consistent across multiple scenarios - including those you might not have thought of. Which your example of bad cops policing themselves obviously did not, so you took your ball and went home.

I actually don't think that you and I are all that far off on many things, but there are a few where we are. C'est la vie.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I have asthma. I've had some pretty bad asthma attacks. I could still breathe but barely. The fact that is now dead would suggest that, in fact, he wasn't joking when he told the cops that he couldn't breathe.


What was his cause of death? I thought it was cardiac arrest. Did the coroner say his death was caused by the choking? Or exacerbated by it?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> He was continuing to speak and as anyone who has ever learned the Heimlich will tell you, if someone can speak, then they can breathe. But are police now supposed to just take suspects' word for things?


Interestingly, I was at a safety training session on Wednesday. We were told that, under no circumstances whatsoever should a person be subjected to restriction to the chest wall or restriction to the diaphragm, and that if a person so constricted says "I can't breathe" then they must be believed, because, despite popular mythology, it _*is*_ possible to speak whilst being asphyxiated.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Who is defending bad cops? And who defines bad? You. You make an unqualified statement like "bad cops" and then decide who fits in that category.
> 
> Then you go on to say "people who defend bad cops (according to you) often say....". Where is this occurring? No one is defending bad cops.


Lots of people defend bad cops. People on this board were defending Casebolt. He is a bad cop. People on this board have defended the cops who posed with the African American suspect in trophy hunter style. Those were bad cops. Even cops themselves say that these cops were bad cops. But, somehow, people are defending them nonetheless, even though good cops do not behave the way that these cops, condemned by other cops, behaved. To this day, people still defend the cops who beat Rodney King. Those were bad cops. And they are not made from straw. Remember Commander Burge?

There are bad cops, just as there are bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers. But people don't defend bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers the way that bad cops are defended. Somehow, there is something about being a cop that makes them immune from criticism in the eyes of some people. But let's get real and use some common sense here. I've just listed some examples of bad cops. Now, if you want to argue and call these folks good cops, be my guest. Defending cops like these says more about you than it says about them. I have said, many, many times, that the overwhelming number of cops are good. You can look it up.


----------



## SG_67

So you get to define bad cops and then run with it from there?

You're defining bad in your terms and then going on about it. By the way, I don't think the two Chicago cops were bad cops, they were morons but is there evidence of bad policing on their part? Corruption? 

Casebolt is a bad cop? One could argue that he could have acted differently but does that make him a bad cop?

You define bad and then criticize anyone who argues with your definition of it.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> So you get to define bad cops and then run with it from there?
> 
> You're defining bad in your terms and then going on about it. By the way, I don't think the two Chicago cops were bad cops, they were morons but is there evidence of bad policing on their part? Corruption?
> 
> Casebolt is a bad cop? One could argue that he could have acted differently but does that make him a bad cop?
> 
> You define bad and then criticize anyone who argues with your definition of it.


An armed policeman who is also a moron is, clearly a "bad cop". How can a moron be a "good cop"? An armed policeman who loses control of himself and draws his firearm unnecessarily is clearly a "bad cop". A "good cop" would have kept himself under control, as the others there did.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> An armed policeman who is also a moron is, clearly a "bad cop". How can a moron be a "good cop"? An armed policeman who loses control of himself and draws his firearm unnecessarily is clearly a "bad cop". A "good cop" would have kept himself under control, as the others there did.


Was he being a bad cop when he responded to earlier suicide calls?

There's a difference between improper behavior and being categorically bad. A cursory reading of Western Philosophy should enlighten you on the difference.

p.s. I know many people who I consider to be morons in behavior but professionally competent.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Lots of people defend bad cops. People on this board were defending Casebolt. He is a bad cop. People on this board have defended the cops who posed with the African American suspect in trophy hunter style. Those were bad cops. Even cops themselves say that these cops were bad cops. But, somehow, people are defending them nonetheless, even though good cops do not behave the way that these cops, condemned by other cops, behaved. To this day, people still defend the cops who beat Rodney King. Those were bad cops. And they are not made from straw. Remember Commander Burge?
> 
> There are bad cops, just as there are bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers. But people don't defend bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers the way that bad cops are defended. Somehow, there is something about being a cop that makes them immune from criticism in the eyes of some people. But let's get real and use some common sense here. I've just listed some examples of bad cops. Now, if you want to argue and call these folks good cops, be my guest. Defending cops like these says more about you than it says about them. I have said, many, many times, that the overwhelming number of cops are good. You can look it up.


People not only defend bad journalists and journalism as much - or more - than bad cops, but it is probably far, far more damaging in its widespread effects.

Also, this polaroid pic you keep railing on, when was that taken? I haven't seen polaroids in quite a while.

Finally, you are at what - 20 bad cops on which you are basing your arguments? And most of these are isolated incidents that people want to blow up into systemic failures or guiding principles of entire departments.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> Interestingly, I was at a safety training session on Wednesday. We were told that, under no circumstances whatsoever should a person be subjected to restriction to the chest wall or restriction to the diaphragm, and that if a person so constricted says "I can't breathe" then they must be believed, because, despite popular mythology, it _*is*_ possible to speak whilst being asphyxiated.


Are you seriously trying to compare a rescue situation with one where you are trying to subdue them?


----------



## Chouan

vpkozel said:


> Are you seriously trying to compare a rescue situation with one where you are trying to subdue them?


No. I can't see how you would think that from what I wrote. The training was about subduing a person who was a threat to safety.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Yes. By any objective standard, these are bad cops. I wouldn't want them patrolling my neighborhood. You are free to welcome them into your own. If you don't think that photographs such as this don't undermine public confidence and trust in police and thereby make the job of every cop that much harder, well, I suppose that you are entitled to your opinion. You seem to be saying that excessive force and overtly racist activity is OK, so long as cops aren't corrupt. I disagree with you. I think most people, including most cops, would disagree with you. For the record, one of the officers in the photograph, Jerome Finnigan, was convicted of multiple charges and sent to prison a few years back. He was leading a band of other officers in committing home invasion robberies and, at one point, was accused of plotting to kill a fellow officer. Does that qualify him as a bad cop? I would hope so. I would also wonder why he got fired from his job as a prison guard before he was hired by the Chicago Police Department. Records on the reasons behind his firing seem to have disappeared. I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about why someone who treats black people as hunting trophies and was later sent to prison for multiple felonies was fired by the Department of Corrections. Let's just say it doesn't look good.

As for Casebolt, he was supposed to be the adult in the room. That's in the job definition. Instead, he was running around and screaming and cussing and waving his gun--he was the least-calm person at that scene when he was charged with restoring the peace. That's what makes him a bad cop, my friend. I will plead guilty to defining a bad cop as an officer who can't control his mouth or his behavior and puts himself, the public and other officers at risk by doing things that carry a risk of escalating, instead of defusing, a given situation. Do you disagree with this?

Really now. You're not just arguing with me, you are arguing with trained, professional police officers and administrators who have publicly condemned both of these incidents. Do you know more about being a cop than they do? Really?

You and I and everyone else has every right to have opinions about whether individual cops are good or bad, just as we have every right to have opinions on whether a given pair of shoes is good or bad or whether a movie is good or bad. The difference is, it is possible to have a more objective point of view on whether a cop--or any other person--is effective at his or her job. End of the day, I am reminded of what Richard Pryor once said: Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? And other cops.



SG_67 said:


> So you get to define bad cops and then run with it from there?
> 
> You're defining bad in your terms and then going on about it. By the way, I don't think the two Chicago cops were bad cops, they were morons but is there evidence of bad policing on their part? Corruption?
> 
> Casebolt is a bad cop? One could argue that he could have acted differently but does that make him a bad cop?
> 
> You define bad and then criticize anyone who argues with your definition of it.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Read the Ferguson report? Familiar with DOJ investigations into any number of other police departments, Seattle and Philadelphia to name just two? Done any reading on the Oakland PD recently? No? Then perhaps you should do a bit of research.

I'm not saying all cops are bad. I'm not saying all departments are bad. I've never anything of the sort. But a few bad apples can cause dramatic and disproportionate damage. That's why it is important to effectively address bad policing. Public trust and confidence in the police is crucial, I think, and if we keep doing things the way that we have always done things, which is to say, fail to address systemic problems on the grounds that, well, it's only a few and we're talking about criminals so who cares, etc., etc., etc., public confidence and trust will continue to erode. With good reason.

Your argument--and lord how you like to argue--regarding journalists is, I think, more than a bit specious. Public polling has consistently shown that the public holds the media in low regard. Add to that the fact that reporters don't carry guns or dress in kevlar. And don't bother--I'm not going to get into a debate about journalism here, anymore than I'm going to debate you about Muslims when the topic at hand is something else entirely.



vpkozel said:


> People not only defend bad journalists and journalism as much - or more - than bad cops, but it is probably far, far more damaging in its widespread effects.
> 
> Also, this polaroid pic you keep railing on, when was that taken? I haven't seen polaroids in quite a while.
> 
> Finally, you are at what - 20 bad cops on which you are basing your arguments? And most of these are isolated incidents that people want to blow up into systemic failures or guiding principles of entire departments.


----------



## vpkozel

Chouan said:


> No. I can't see how you would think that from what I wrote. The training was about subduing a person who was a threat to safety.


I was not sure at all what you talking about. And when subduing a person who is a threat to safety, you use force and tactics commensurate to the situation. If it is life threatening, that is a different level than a grade schooler misbehaving and actions for one would not be appropriate for the other.

As it relates to breathing, it is all about math - how much air are you able to get into your lungs and process. The reason choke holds are not within department standards is not because they restrict air flow more effectively - which they do - but because their use can result in physical damage like a broken windpipe.

The reason why you restrict airflow when subduing a person is to get them to calm down or even to pass out. The only way that a person could asphyxiate on land is if you continue to restrict the airflow, which is not the case in the Gordon situation. Nor where they doing anything to obstruct his diaphragm - although he was on his chest and at some point there were officers on top of him.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Was he being a bad cop when he responded to earlier suicide calls?
> 
> There's a difference between improper behavior and being categorically bad. A cursory reading of Western Philosophy should enlighten you on the difference.
> 
> p.s. I know many people who I consider to be morons in behavior but professionally competent.


I wasn't applying a moral angle here. I'm not assigning the idea of "good person" or "bad person" here, but assessing how good or bad they are at their job. A person in a position of trust and authority, who carries a firearm, who allows himself to get carried away by a situation such that he loses control of himself is bad at what he is doing and shouldn't be doing it.
Interestingly, you appear to be, unconsciously I think, suggesting that he shouldn't be criticised for his failure in this incident because he behaved as he should at an earlier incident. A policeman, especially an armed policeman, should always, invariably, without exception, behave properly in every single incident. They should never be out of control or be carried away by circumstances. If that happens then they shouldn't be doing the job. Do you really want to have armed policemen going around who allow themselves to lose control of themselves? Surely, if they fail that test it is right that they should resign?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Read the Ferguson report? Familiar with DOJ investigations into any number of other police departments, Seattle and Philadelphia to name just two? Done any reading on the Oakland PD recently? No? Then perhaps you should do a bit of research.


How many federal investigations have been released where the investigators reached the conclusion that it was all a waste of time and money? Please don't be so naïve as to think that the DOJ approaches these situations with pure motives and no bias.



> I'm not saying all cops are bad. I'm not saying all departments are bad. I've never anything of the sort. But a few bad apples can cause dramatic and disproportionate damage. That's why it is important to effectively address bad policing. Public trust and confidence in the police is crucial, I think, and if we keep doing things the way that we have always done things, which is to say, fail to address systemic problems on the grounds that, well, it's only a few and we're talking about criminals so who cares, etc., etc., etc., public confidence and trust will continue to erode. With good reason.


I could change that quote to be representative of lots of groups of people, but that might upset you.


----------



## SG_67

^ You're implying he lost control of himself. Who exactly was harmed? Did he really lose control of himself? Did he act aggressively? Yes. 

Again, you indicate he's a bad cop. Have you ever misjudged something in your career and should you be judged on that incident? I can understand if there's a pattern of behavior which one can point to but we really don't have that here. He didn't shoot anyone, choke anyone or send anyone to the hospital. 

He drew his firearm but look at the incident preceding it and the aggressive move made no him. I don't want to re-litigate the affair. It's on video and people can draw their own conclusion and we obviously see things from a different point of view. Nor am I going to take to heart the comments of the police chief or other public officials as just statements are made in the context of a political environment where it's safer to throw someone overboard and quell public discontent, evidence of which is somewhat dubious in this case which makes me wonder who really over-reacted. 

If your criteria for being either good or bad is a single incident, then I believe we are all bad at what we do.


----------



## Acct2000

Chouan said:


> Does "The Left" think it "cool" so to do?


I see little if any condemnation of it on the left websites or in the comments. I think that they at a minimum condone it. I'm not a big fan of the right or the left.

In this case, the blatant hypocrisy on the left of demanding death or destruction of everyone who does a foolish thing while they decry violence by the police is obvious and really off-putting.

There are plenty of similar hypocritical situations on the right, too.

The idea of advancing anything, no matter how dubious or inaccurate as long as it supports your preconceived prejudices is ridiculous, but practiced by the extreme right and left all the time. Sigh.


----------



## Acct2000

32rollandrock said:


> Lots of people defend bad cops. People on this board were defending Casebolt. He is a bad cop. People on this board have defended the cops who posed with the African American suspect in trophy hunter style. Those were bad cops. Even cops themselves say that these cops were bad cops. But, somehow, people are defending them nonetheless, even though good cops do not behave the way that these cops, condemned by other cops, behaved. To this day, people still defend the cops who beat Rodney King. Those were bad cops. And they are not made from straw. Remember Commander Burge?
> 
> There are bad cops, just as there are bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers. But people don't defend bad doctors and bad lawyers and bad journalists and bad cab drivers the way that bad cops are defended. Somehow, there is something about being a cop that makes them immune from criticism in the eyes of some people. But let's get real and use some common sense here. I've just listed some examples of bad cops. Now, if you want to argue and call these folks good cops, be my guest. Defending cops like these says more about you than it says about them. I have said, many, many times, that the overwhelming number of cops are good. You can look it up.


What people might be weary of is the ever-escalating drumbeat that all white people, especially policemen are inherently racist.

I'm on your side that Casebolt did a really poor job in this circumstance, but the people on the other side in this situation are not virtuous saints either. Almost none of the lefties will admit that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Well, of course they weren't saints. But they weren't the devil incarnate, either. And I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. We pay cops to keep the peace and catch bad guys. We don't pay them to do what this cop did. Again, you can't excuse inexcusable behavior by saying, "Well, look who he was dealing with." If a cop can't comport himself or herself in an appropriate fashion while on the job, he or she should not be a cop.

I can't agree that there is an ever-escalating drum beat that all white people, especially cops, are inherently racist. But it is worth asking the question: If there are systemic issues in law enforcement and the justice system overall that result in racial disparities, that's an issue that we should all care about, and I think that there is an issue in this regard. And if the white majority that is now overwhelmingly in charge of The System--and I'm speaking here of everything from legislatures to cops to prosecutors to Congress--will not acknowledge systemic issues or do anything to address issues, that's problematic and does, I think, open the door to accusations of racism.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> What people might be weary of is the ever-escalating drumbeat is that all white people, especially policemen are inherently racist.
> 
> I'm on your side that Casebolt did a really poor job in this circumstance, but the people on the other side in this situation are not virtuous saints either. Almost none of the lefties will admit that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Sometimes, you can reach good-bad conclusions based on a single incident, whether it's a cop or a journalist or a doctor or a lawyer or a truck driver. It depends on the seriousness and the circumstances, and no two incidents, I think we can agree, are alike. In this case, I believe the behavior was sufficient to make a judgment that Casebolt was a bad cop and should not be a police officer. You are free to disagree. Keep in mind, also, that we don't know his background/record regarding any other cases of misconduct--and this is, in my judgment and the judgment of the police chief, a case of misconduct.

Of course everyone makes mistakes. And, generally speaking, we shouldn't judge someone based on a single bad decision or action. That's generally speaking. But if a surgeon shows up drunk and amputates the wrong leg or does something equally egregious that results in actual and considerable harm to a patient, I think that he should be stripped of his license to practice medicine. If a journalist plagiarizes just once or makes up a source just once, he or she should be fired. These examples rise to the level of seriousness that you shouldn't get a second chance. But doctors who have done this sort of thing and journalists who have done these sorts of things can and have kept their licenses and jobs.



SG_67 said:


> ^ You're implying he lost control of himself. Who exactly was harmed? Did he really lose control of himself? Did he act aggressively? Yes.
> 
> Again, you indicate he's a bad cop. Have you ever misjudged something in your career and should you be judged on that incident? I can understand if there's a pattern of behavior which one can point to but we really don't have that here. He didn't shoot anyone, choke anyone or send anyone to the hospital.
> 
> He drew his firearm but look at the incident preceding it and the aggressive move made no him. I don't want to re-litigate the affair. It's on video and people can draw their own conclusion and we obviously see things from a different point of view. Nor am I going to take to heart the comments of the police chief or other public officials as just statements are made in the context of a political environment where it's safer to throw someone overboard and quell public discontent, evidence of which is somewhat dubious in this case which makes me wonder who really over-reacted.
> 
> If your criteria for being either good or bad is a single incident, then I believe we are all bad at what we do.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I am ignoring you. Again.



vpkozel said:


> How many federal investigations have been released where the investigators reached the conclusion that it was all a waste of time and money? Please don't be so naïve as to think that the DOJ approaches these situations with pure motives and no bias.
> 
> I could change that quote to be representative of lots of groups of people, but that might upset you.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> But it is worth asking the question: If there are systemic issues in law enforcement and the justice system overall that result in racial disparities, that's an issue that we should all care about, and I think that there is an issue in this regard. And if the white majority that is now overwhelmingly in charge of The System--and I'm speaking here of everything from legislatures to cops to prosecutors to Congress--will not acknowledge systemic issues or do anything to address issues, that's problematic and does, I think, open the door to accusations of racism.


What if you don't agree with your hypothesis?


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> I am ignoring you. Again.


Of course you are. It makes it way easier to throw out gross and irresponsible generalizations when no one is making things inconvenient for you by pointing out the flaws....


----------



## Acct2000

32rollandrock said:


> Well, of course they weren't saints. But they weren't the devil incarnate, either. And I don't see how this makes any difference whatsoever. We pay cops to keep the peace and catch bad guys. We don't pay them to do what this cop did. Again, you can't excuse inexcusable behavior by saying, "Well, look who he was dealing with." If a cop can't comport himself or herself in an appropriate fashion while on the job, he or she should not be a cop.
> 
> I can't agree that there is an ever-escalating drum beat that all white people, especially cops, are inherently racist. But it is worth asking the question: If there are systemic issues in law enforcement and the justice system overall that result in racial disparities, that's an issue that we should all care about, and I think that there is an issue in this regard. And if the white majority that is now overwhelmingly in charge of The System--and I'm speaking here of everything from legislatures to cops to prosecutors to Congress--will not acknowledge systemic issues or do anything to address issues, that's problematic and does, I think, open the door to accusations of racism.


Or classism - - -

On the other hand, our system imprisons and ruins the lives of way too many people. Authorities looking for easy statistics have a much easier time picking on poor people and those without connections. Even though racism is probably not the actual goal, the disparate treatment of poor people and minorities is a problem.

All you do when you constantly accuse people of racism is blind their eyes and deafen their ears to possible problem solutions. The left really, really needs to learn that.

(And the right really needs to learn that the disparities exist and need to be addressed. This is true, even if it's for just cynically practical reasons.) Our society needs to make things fairer for all people, not just the rich people. Rich people would be wise to learn that at least some of their position is possible because the rest of society permits it.)


----------



## vpkozel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> (And the right really needs to learn that the disparities exist and need to be addressed. This is true, even if it's for just cynically practical reasons.) Our society needs to make things fairer for all people, not just the rich people. Rich people would be wise to learn that at least some of their position is possible because the rest of society permits it.)


Aren't we doing this already though? Disparity will always exist. There is not a place in the world where it doesn't, and there never has been.

The question is not - or at least, should not be - whether disparity is good or bad. The question should be, what is fair and how do we ensure that everyone has equal *ability *to live to that standard. If, by their own actions they choose not to live that way, then that is their right, but you can't blame that on someone or something else if they change their minds.


----------



## Acct2000

What's going on at the top is one of the results of unfettered capitalism. It's as destructive as the "I'm a victim so there's no point in trying" stuff you get from some on the other end.

Righties refuse to see that. What's happening now is a lot more than just "disparity." We are developing a class of rich people that reminds me of the stereotypical greedy rich people who care nothing about others. (I think Hillary Clinton is one of them, for what it's worth.)


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> An armed policeman who is also a moron is, clearly a "bad cop". How can a moron be a "good cop"? An armed policeman who loses control of himself and draws his firearm unnecessarily is clearly a "bad cop". A "good cop" would have kept himself under control, as the others there did.


except, that he clearly had a reason to draw his weapon on the two gentlemen who acted aggressively towards him. If you actually watched the video you would notice that, and that one of them was brought back in handcuffs, for interfering with an officer. I think most of those kids should have been arrested for that at the very least.

Chouan in a lot of these posts you keep mentioning the fact that they are "Armed policemen" I am beginning to think that your issue is more that they are carrying a firearm than anything else.


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> Yes. By any objective standard, these are bad cops. I wouldn't want them patrolling my neighborhood. You are free to welcome them into your own. If you don't think that photographs such as this don't undermine public confidence and trust in police and thereby make the job of every cop that much harder, well, I suppose that you are entitled to your opinion. You seem to be saying that excessive force and overtly racist activity is OK, so long as cops aren't corrupt. I disagree with you. I think most people, including most cops, would disagree with you. For the record, one of the officers in the photograph, Jerome Finnigan, was convicted of multiple charges and sent to prison a few years back. He was leading a band of other officers in committing home invasion robberies and, at one point, was accused of plotting to kill a fellow officer. Does that qualify him as a bad cop? I would hope so. I would also wonder why he got fired from his job as a prison guard before he was hired by the Chicago Police Department. Records on the reasons behind his firing seem to have disappeared. I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about why someone who treats black people as hunting trophies and was later sent to prison for multiple felonies was fired by the Department of Corrections. Let's just say it doesn't look good.
> 
> As for Casebolt, he was supposed to be the adult in the room. That's in the job definition. Instead, *he was running around and screaming and cussing and waving his gun*--he was the least-calm person at that scene when he was charged with restoring the peace. That's what makes him a bad cop, my friend. I will plead guilty to defining a bad cop as an officer who can't control his mouth or his behavior and puts himself, the public and other officers at risk by doing things that carry a risk of escalating, instead of defusing, a given situation. Do you disagree with this?
> 
> Really now. You're not just arguing with me, you are arguing with trained, professional police officers and administrators who have publicly condemned both of these incidents. Do you know more about being a cop than they do? Really?
> 
> You and I and everyone else has every right to have opinions about whether individual cops are good or bad, just as we have every right to have opinions on whether a given pair of shoes is good or bad or whether a movie is good or bad. The difference is, it is possible to have a more objective point of view on whether a cop--or any other person--is effective at his or her job. End of the day, I am reminded of what Richard Pryor once said: Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? And other cops.


This made me laugh out loud literally. So it is up to you decide that he is a bad cop due to this one incident, where he was more heated then the only two other officers shown in the video. "Waving his gun around" come on man you are better than that. I would expect every single person on this forum to, not tell me a bold faced lie. We are all gentlemen on this forum, and I cannot allow you to spread that the officer was "waving his gun around" It has already been proven that he had a completely valid reason to draw his weapon on two guys who were acting aggressively towards him.

waving his gun around, give me a break.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Dmontez said:


> This made me laugh out loud literally. So it is up to you decide that he is a bad cop due to this one incident, where he was more heated then the only two other officers shown in the video. "Waving his gun around" come on man you are better than that. I would expect every single person on this forum to, not tell me a bold faced lie. We are all gentlemen on this forum, and I cannot allow you to spread that the officer was "waving his gun around" It has already been proven that he had a completely valid reason to draw his weapon on two guys who were acting aggressively towards him.
> 
> waving his gun around, give me a break.


Don't take my word for it. The chief said that he was out of control and a discredit to the department. Do you know more about policing than a career cop? Sounds like you think that you do. Do you also know how to fly jet airliners and perform open heart surgery?


----------



## vpkozel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What's going on at the top is one of the results of unfettered capitalism. It's as destructive as the "I'm a victim so there's no point in trying" stuff you get from some on the other end.
> 
> Righties refuse to see that. What's happening now is a lot more than just "disparity." We are developing a class of rich people that reminds me of the stereotypical greedy rich people who care nothing about others. (I think Hillary Clinton is one of them, for what it's worth.)


Yes, I agree. The situation at the top - especially CEO pay - is deplorable. There is no way that someone can reasonably justify what some of those folks earn.  But it also is akin to screaming at the guy playing violin on the Titanic while is sinking that he missed a note. As are all of these stories of people buying lobster or crab with food stamps.

One thing is certainly clear though, and that is that the current approaches are not working very well - if at all - and we need to start having adult conversations about why. Only then can we start having discussions about what to do.


----------



## Acct2000

True. 

We won't start solving any of these problems until solving becomes more important than blaming to a lot of people.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Sometimes, you can reach good-bad conclusions based on a single incident, whether it's a cop or a journalist or a doctor or a lawyer or a truck driver. It depends on the seriousness and the circumstances, and no two incidents, I think we can agree, are alike. In this case, I believe the behavior was sufficient to make a judgment that Casebolt was a bad cop and should not be a police officer. You are free to disagree. Keep in mind, also, that we don't know his background/record regarding any other cases of misconduct--and this is, in my judgment and the judgment of the police chief, a case of misconduct.
> 
> Of course everyone makes mistakes. And, generally speaking, we shouldn't judge someone based on a single bad decision or action. That's generally speaking. But if a surgeon shows up drunk and amputates the wrong leg or does something equally egregious that results in actual and considerable harm to a patient, I think that he should be stripped of his license to practice medicine. If a journalist plagiarizes just once or makes up a source just once, he or she should be fired. These examples rise to the level of seriousness that you shouldn't get a second chance. But doctors who have done this sort of thing and journalists who have done these sorts of things can and have kept their licenses and jobs.


Again, a straw man. No one was hurt in the incident in Texas. And a surgeon showing up drunk is completely different from, oh let's say a post operative infection which usually gets attributed to the surgeon but which in reality is an unfortunate post operative occurrence. As is possible nerve damage, or failure of the surgery. These are things that can happen, yet the surgeon is often responsible for it when it comes to litigation. Trust me, we all deal with this.


----------



## Chouan

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What people might be weary of is the ever-escalating drumbeat that all white people, especially policemen are inherently racist.
> 
> I'm on your side that Casebolt did a really poor job in this circumstance, but the people on the other side in this situation are not virtuous saints either. Almost none of the lefties will admit that.


Something of a straw man being offered here. Certainly the response in the UK isn't that it is racist policemen being unfair on black people, the view is more that policemen are using disproportionate force, thinking that they can do as they like, both here and in the US. 
You also appear to be stereotyping. Who are you identifying as "lefties"? Do you really believe that all of those on the Left are the same, with the same views and attitudes?


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> except, that he clearly had a reason to draw his weapon on the two gentlemen who acted aggressively towards him. If you actually watched the video you would notice that, and that one of them was brought back in handcuffs, for interfering with an officer. I think most of those kids should have been arrested for that at the very least.
> 
> Chouan in a lot of these posts you keep mentioning the fact that they are "Armed policemen" I am beginning to think that your issue is more that they are carrying a firearm than anything else.


An armed policeman who has lost control of himself is, I think, a danger. Don't you?


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'm still not, at all, understanding this "straw man" stuff. Are you certain that you understand what "straw man" means? As for the incident in Texas, yes, no one was hurt. But it is not a case of no harm, no foul. The officer's actions escalated the chances of something truly bad happening.

Forgive, but you are starting to remind me of our friend from Charlotte: You are defending cops that cops aren't defending, and it takes a lot for cops to not defend other cops. It sounds as if your heels are dug in so hard that you won't listen to what's being said or consider other points of view. And where is this stuff on post-op infection coming from? That's clear-blue stuff, it seems to me. I don't see that it has anything to do with the matter at hand, which is, there are cases where one misdeed merits the proverbial death sentence. It's just getting very hard to follow your logic and understand how you are connecting dots that seem disparate.

Since we're on the subject, read about a case just the other day where a surgeon mistook a healthy kidney for diseased spleen and removed the wrong organ. His punishment? A $2,500 fine, plus a $2 million malpractice settlement. And it took seven years for the state to issue the fine. What's your take on that? Sound fair? Is this another case of a poor physician getting unfairly raked by the system?



SG_67 said:


> Again, a straw man. No one was hurt in the incident in Texas. And a surgeon showing up drunk is completely different from, oh let's say a post operative infection which usually gets attributed to the surgeon but which in reality is an unfortunate post operative occurrence. As is possible nerve damage, or failure of the surgery. These are things that can happen, yet the surgeon is often responsible for it when it comes to litigation. Trust me, we all deal with this.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> An armed policeman who has lost control of himself is, I think, a danger. Don't you?


When you get to define what losing control of ones self means then I suppose it's hard to argue.



32rollandrock said:


> I'm still not, at all, understanding this "straw man" stuff. Are you certain that you understand what "straw man" means? As for the incident in Texas, yes, no one was hurt. But it is not a case of no harm, no foul. The officer's actions escalated the chances of something truly bad happening.
> 
> Forgive, but you are starting to remind me of our friend from Charlotte: You are defending cops that cops aren't defending, and it takes a lot for cops to not defend other cops. It sounds as if your heels are dug in so hard that you won't listen to what's being said or consider other points of view. And where is this stuff on post-op infection coming from? That's clear-blue stuff, it seems to me. I don't see that it has anything to do with the matter at hand, which is, there are cases where one misdeed merits the proverbial death sentence. It's just getting very hard to follow your logic and understand how you are connecting dots that seem disparate.
> 
> Since we're on the subject, read about a case just the other day where a surgeon mistook a healthy kidney for diseased spleen and removed the wrong organ. His punishment? A $2,500 fine, plus a $2 million malpractice settlement. And it took seven years for the state to issue the fine. What's your take on that? Sound fair? Is this another case of a poor physician getting unfairly raked by the system?


Mistakes happen sometimes. It's not what you want to hear but in this case it sounds like the normal safeguards and time outs prior to cutting did not work. I don't know the case so I'll refrain from comment.

As for McKinney Tx, anything could have happened. Could have and might have don't matter. The two guys who rushed behind the cop feigning the drawing of a weapon could have escalated the situation. He drew his gun and in an instant realized they were unarmed and holstered his weapon. Had he gone wavering it around and threatening people with it then you'd have at least some semblance of an argument.

As for the police chief, trust me, it's political and it's just easy to throw the guy under the bus. Had the chief come out in support of the officer I'm sure your view of him would be much different. But you liked the outcome so all of a sudden everything is sensible.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Forgive, but you are starting to remind me of our friend from Charlotte: You are defending cops that cops aren't defending, and it takes a lot for cops to not defend other cops.


Good Lord.

Not agreeing with your take on things <> defending this officer - or all police, or whatever words you are trying to put in my text box.


----------



## Dmontez

Chouan said:


> An armed policeman who has lost control of himself is, I think, a danger. Don't you?


My point is that it is unnecessary to call him an "armed policeman" all LEOs carry a weapon of some sort. You say a man whom has lost control of himself, and I say a man whom was trying to gain control of a situation that could have turned out much much worse had he not drawn his weapon.


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> Don't take my word for it. The chief said that he was out of control and a discredit to the department. Do you know more about policing than a career cop? Sounds like you think that you do. Do you also know how to fly jet airliners and perform open heart surgery?


No, I do not know more than a career cop, but I spent more than the first half of my life with a federal agent that wanted me to follow in his foot steps, so I do have some knowledge of their duties, and how they see things.

I will say this again. I fully believe that there was a decision made that regardless of how they actually felt, that for the safety of the community they decided to not stand with, or behind the officer, and asked him to resign. *Not safety from the officer, but safety from all of the people that would be rioting had this not turned out the way they wanted it too. *

As I have said before the people who are reasonable and don't think the the officer should have been fired would not be out protesting(rioting) had he been fired, but the people who are threatening his life, and the lives of people in the community for what they think was wrong are already threatening violence before a decision was even made. Isn't Al Sharpton already on his way over there to stir the pot even more?

But the whole point of the post you quoted was that you flat out lied when you said "waving his gun around" and you decided to completely ignore that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Dmontez said:


> No, I do not know more than a career cop, but I spent more than the first half of my life with a federal agent that wanted me to follow in his foot steps, so I do have some knowledge of their duties, and how they see things.
> 
> I will say this again. I fully believe that there was a decision made that regardless of how they actually felt, that for the safety of the community they decided to not stand with, or behind the officer, and asked him to resign. *Not safety from the officer, but safety from all of the people that would be rioting had this not turned out the way they wanted it too. *
> 
> As I have said before the people who are reasonable and don't think the the officer should have been fired would not be out protesting(rioting) had he been fired, but the people who are threatening his life, and the lives of people in the community for what they think was wrong are already threatening violence before a decision was even made. Isn't Al Sharpton already on his way over there to stir the pot even more?
> 
> But the whole point of the post you quoted was that you flat out lied when you said "waving his gun around" and you decided to completely ignore that.


Wow. Just wow.

The stuff you say here about rioting is most disturbing. It suggests that you see people as rioters, even if they are engaging in peaceful protest. It suggests that you disagree with the First Amendment. It suggests that lives were somehow at stake. It reminds me of the colonel's testimony near the end of "A Few Good Men." We have to do things this way, otherwise people will die. I disagree.

I saw a documentary on police once. It was on TV. I watched really closely. That makes me as much an expert as someone who has had zero training in law enforcement but had a friend who was some sort of federal agent. Nope. I'll stick with what the career law enforcement experts have to say on this.


----------



## 32rollandrock

vpkozel said:


> Good Lord.
> 
> Not agreeing with your take on things <> defending this officer - or all police, or whatever words you are trying to put in my text box.


What I am saying is, you seem to like to argue simply for the sake of arguing as opposed to engaging in reasoned debate. It doesn't matter much what position anyone takes on anything, you will, invariably, take a contrarian point of view.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> What I am saying is, you seem to like to argue simply for the sake of arguing as opposed to engaging in reasoned debate. It doesn't matter much what position anyone takes on anything, you will, invariably, take a contrarian point of view.


I disagree. :happy:


----------



## 32rollandrock

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You say it's political, with zero proof, because you didn't like the outcome. I say it was a reasoned point of view based on a viewing of the facts. If you want a cursing, screaming out-of-control cop patrolling your neighborhood who throws unarmed little girls to the ground and twists their arms and waves his gun around (and note how the other cops reacted when he did that) while no other cop on the scene is behaving in a similar fashion, then move to...well, you're already there, aren't you? Chicago, after all, doesn't a particularly laudable record when it comes to police misconduct.



SG_67 said:


> When you get to define what losing control of ones self means then I suppose it's hard to argue.
> 
> Mistakes happen sometimes. It's not what you want to hear but in this case it sounds like the normal safeguards and time outs prior to cutting did not work. I don't know the case so I'll refrain from comment.
> 
> As for McKinney Tx, anything could have happened. Could have and might have don't matter. The two guys who rushed behind the cop feigning the drawing of a weapon could have escalated the situation. He drew his gun and in an instant realized they were unarmed and holstered his weapon. Had he gone wavering it around and threatening people with it then you'd have at least some semblance of an argument.
> 
> As for the police chief, trust me, it's political and it's just easy to throw the guy under the bus. Had the chief come out in support of the officer I'm sure your view of him would be much different. But you liked the outcome so all of a sudden everything is sensible.


----------



## MaxBuck

It seems to me that many people posting here:

1. Are not able to differentiate a single incident of inappropriate behavior from being "a bad cop."

2. Are not able to differentiate a single incident of inappropriate behavior from being a racist.

3. Are not able to recognize that, good cop or not, inappropriate professional behavior must have consequences.

4. Are not able to recognize that consequences of a single incident of inappropriate behavior need not be draconian (e.g., termination of employment).

Lots of "all-or-nothing" thinking appears here, to my thinking. (As usual, forsberg is a voice of reason.)


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think that it might be a case of honest disagreement. Yeah, I'm on the side that says the photo was enough to can those guys. What Casebolt did on that one call was enough to keep him from being a cop, even if he had nothing else on his record (we don't know that yet). If for no other reason, if Casebolt screws up again and someone sues, the public is on the hook for a lawsuit, and it's possible, depending on circumstances of a second case, that the video could be used as evidence. Same thing with the Polaroid posers. Casebolt has already as much as admitted he screwed up because he was stressed out. I'm sorry, but in his line of work, that's not an acceptable reason. Any rate, it looks like there's going to be a lawsuit anyway in the McKinney case, so we'll probably be finding out more.

In the Chicago case, a judge this week upheld the termination of the cop who isn't in prison for robbery and plotting to kill another cop--sounds like he got due process and lost, which is the way it's supposed to work. Also, new details on how the photograph came to be:



MaxBuck said:


> It seems to me that many people posting here:
> 
> 1. Are not able to differentiate a single incident of inappropriate behavior from being "a bad cop."
> 
> 2. Are not able to differentiate a single incident of inappropriate behavior from being a racist.
> 
> 3. Are not able to recognize that, good cop or not, inappropriate professional behavior must have consequences.
> 
> 4. Are not able to recognize that consequences of a single incident of inappropriate behavior need not be draconian (e.g., termination of employment).
> 
> Lots of "all-or-nothing" thinking appears here, to my thinking. (As usual, forsberg is a voice of reason.)


----------



## Dmontez

32rollandrock said:


> *Wow. Just wow.*
> 
> The stuff you say here about rioting is most disturbing. It suggests that you see people as rioters, even if they are engaging in peaceful protest. It suggests that you disagree with the First Amendment. It suggests that lives were somehow at stake. It reminds me of the colonel's testimony near the end of "A Few Good Men." We have to do things this way, otherwise people will die. I disagree.
> 
> I saw a documentary on police once. It was on TV. I watched really closely. That makes me as much an expert as someone who has had zero training in law enforcement but had a friend who was some sort of federal agent. Nope. I'll stick with what the career law enforcement experts have to say on this.


Wow, just wow, is exactly what I thought when I read your first paragraph. You took what I said and made three assumptions out of it to make your point, which is the exact opposite of how I actually feel.

With what we have seen in the past year with these "protesters" to me seems like they use the word protest to excuse the violence that they incite, which makes me think of them as rioters, and not protesters. If people want to have peaceful protests, then by all means please do so, but the protesters as of late seem to create a lot of "mob mentality" which leads to destroying property en masse. This is not me making multiple assumptions to come to that conclusion either.

I must say again, we are all gentlemen here at AAAC, and I expect more from fellow members.



32rollandrock said:


> If you want a cursing, screaming out-of-control cop patrolling your neighborhood who *throws unarmed little girls to the ground and twists their arms and waves his gun around *(and note how the other cops reacted when he did that)


At this point I have called you out on the lie at least twice without you even defending it, you just re-state the lie in hopes that continuously doing so will magically make it true. I know you are a journalist, and you should know better than that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I think that this is an excellent, in-depth, dispassionate report on the Garner case. Some will draw disparate conclusions:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Chouan

Dmontez said:


> My point is that it is unnecessary to call him an "armed policeman" all LEOs carry a weapon of some sort. You say a man whom has lost control of himself, and I say a man whom was trying to gain control of a situation that could have turned out much much worse had he not drawn his weapon.


But the other policemen there clearly hadn't lost control and weren't running around all pumped up with adrenalin, like he was. He wasn't on his own, he wasn't controlling the situation. He was supposed to be the calming influence, yet his behaviour was escalating the situation. The calming presence of the other policemen gained control of the situation. If it *had* been just him, given the way he was behaving, the situation would have become much worse.


----------



## SG_67

Running around all pumped up with adrenaline. 

Escalated the situation.

Calming influence of the other policemen.

As I said, this conversation is absolutely fruitless. Facts are being invented without substantiation and only then is criticism being offered. The very definition of a straw man argument. I'm glad none of you are attorneys.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Running around all pumped up with adrenaline.
> 
> Escalated the situation.
> 
> Calming influence of the other policemen.
> 
> As I said, this conversation is absolutely fruitless. Facts are being invented without substantiation and only then is criticism being offered. The very definition of a straw man argument. I'm glad none of you are attorneys.


I'm merely describing what I saw. He was running around, using language that I thought inappropriate. The other policemen appeared to be moving calmly.


----------



## SG_67

^ Yes of course. As I said, when you define the facts the rest of the argument becomes easy. 

I'll grant you though, that was your observation and so those are the only conclusions you can draw.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Once again: Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes and ears?



SG_67 said:


> ^ Yes of course. As I said, when you define the facts the rest of the argument becomes easy.
> 
> I'll grant you though, that was your observation and so those are the only conclusions you can draw.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> Once again: Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes and ears?


If your eyes and ears tell you something, everyone else is obligated to agree with them?

And can we please start a police abuse thread or something. Each hone of these threads becomes a referendum on police behavior as a whole, and generally devolves in to anyone defending or attacking one specific action being accused of applying that to all other police actions as well.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This is not a police abuse thread. While I can be critical of police, I am thankful that they exist. I could not do that job, but I am glad that someone can.

Even the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has said, most eloquently and publicly, that police in America are prone to adopting certain mindsets and assumptions due to the work that they do on a daily basis and where they do it and the people whom they encounter. Such mindsets, he has said, are not healthy and lead to bad things. He has called on police to recognize and address this. I could not say it better myself. His remarks have been posted here, I think, previously.

Have you read the NYT piece I posted recently? It's a bit lengthy, but thorough, I think. They talked to witnesses, cops, experts and darn near anyone you can imagine to reconstruct the death of Eric Garner and what led up to it. It seems as objective an account as any I've seen. Among other things, it puts you in the place of police, which helps when it comes to understanding what exactly happened and why. It does not, however, exonerate the police. I'd be interested in knowing your take.

Moving along and away from the exigent-circumstance scenarios in which police are called to make split-second decisions, I'm struck by the aftermath of the shooting of John Crawford, the guy who picked up a pellet gun while shopping at Walmart last fall, apparently to purchase it, and was gunned down by police who mistook him for a deranged gunman. We've already talked about the shooting itself, so let's not have that debate again. Rather, consider what happened in the aftermath, specifically, a detective's interview with Crawford's girlfriend, who was in a different part of the store when the shooting occurred.

By the time the girlfriend reached the interview room, the police should have known, probably did know, that Crawford was carrying a pellet gun and had broken no laws. Yet, the detective is operating under the assumption that it was a bona fide firearm. He tells the distraught girlfriend that she must have known that Crawford had a rifle and threatens her with jail for lying when she is telling the truth--several times, she asks to take a polygraph. He suggests that Crawford had gone to the store, armed, in search of his ex-wife. Repeatedly, he asks the girlfriend whether she's been drinking or is on drugs, at one point telling her that her speech is lethargic and suggestive of someone who is high. The girlfriend, who has done nothing wrong, holds up remarkably well, better than I would have. At the 21-minute mark, she asks the detective how her boyfriend is doing. He answers that he doesn't know, that he was called in to determine her "involvement."

I understand that police aren't perfect. I understand that interrogation techniques are often not pretty but are necessary. I have no objection to cops lying in the course of interrogating suspects if that's what's needed to arrive at the truth--I understand and accept all of that. But when I see the interview of Crawford's girlfriend, I'm struck by what James Comey, FBI director, said in his speech delivered in February: 

"Many of us develop different flavors of cynicism that we work hard to resist because they can be lazy mental shortcuts. For example, criminal suspects routinely lie about their guilt, and nearly everybody we charge is guilty. That makes it easy for some folks in law enforcement to assume that everybody is lying and that no suspect, regardless of their race, could be innocent. Easy, but wrong."

And if you haven't read the speech, I think that you should. It's posted on the FBI's website:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race

I think that it would be good, before anyone says, "Well, he's just being politically correct" to stop and absorb what he is saying. And then take a look at the first 20 minutes, at least, of the interview of Crawford's girlfriend. It is hard, I think, to escape the conclusion that this is an example of police making assumptions and taking mental shortcuts, even absent exigent circumstances, when an essential truth--it was a pellet gun, not a bona fide firearm--was readily attainable.

Here's the complete interview:








vpkozel said:


> If your eyes and ears tell you something, everyone else is obligated to agree with them?
> 
> And can we please start a police abuse thread or something. Each hone of these threads becomes a referendum on police behavior as a whole, and generally devolves in to anyone defending or attacking one specific action being accused of applying that to all other police actions as well.


----------



## vpkozel

32rollandrock said:


> This is not a police abuse thread. While I can be critical of police, I am thankful that they exist. I could not do that job, but I am glad that someone can.


By police abuse thread, I meant a thread to discuss instances that people consider police abuses of power, not that you are abusing the police by having opinions.


----------



## 32rollandrock

"Duh, I can't go nowhere with a knee on my back."
--Sandra Bland

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

When will this end?


----------



## tocqueville

I just ran across this and thought it worth passing on. It's what I would describe as a fantastic use of data.

https://chicagosmilliondollarblocks.com/#12/41.8650/-87.6657


----------



## 32rollandrock

Agreed.

Illinois lags behind most other states, including such law-and-order strongholds as Texas, in reducing its incarceration rate. The good news is, the governor (a Republican) has set a goal of reducing prison population by 25 percent. No serious opposition has surfaced, so it's a good bet that it will happen. No telling what will happen, though, when they have to come to grips with who, exactly, shouldn't be incarcerated anymore. If you can't bring the population down by freeing nonviolent drug offenders, then you have to start in with folks convicted of property crimes.

I don't have a problem with freeing nonviolent drug offenders. So long as they don't break into my house to steal stuff to feed their habit, they can do as much heroin/cocaine/meth as they want, so far as I'm concerned (I'm also of the opinion that drugs should be legal a la Portugal). But I hate thieves. All this said, there are better ways of dealing with crime than mass incarceration. It certainly hasn't helped matters in the Land of Lincoln.



tocqueville said:


> I just ran across this and thought it worth passing on. It's what I would describe as a fantastic use of data.
> 
> https://chicagosmilliondollarblocks.com/#12/41.8650/-87.6657


----------



## SG_67

^ If they broke into your house while you were away, that's a non-violent offense, no?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Please go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said that I hate thieves, and that, among other things, is where the difficulty lies in reducing the prison population. I said that I do not think that nonviolent drug offenders belong in prison. I also said that I support a Portugal model wherein drugs are legal. Now, you are free to promote the notion that legalizing drugs will increase the crime rate, and I'm happy to have that debate.

But not in this thread.

Again, if you have a response to my post, please address what I said as opposed to twisting my words. I think that I was clear. Illinois, in contrast with other states, has an escalating prison population that has not resulted in a corresponding decrease in crime. You can look no further than Chicago, which has become the murder capital of the nation.

If you think that spending nearly $1.5 billion a year on prisons while the streets grow ever-more dangerous is wise policy and a wise use of public money, well, you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is, if you keep throwing money at a problem that keeps getting worse, then you should reevaluate the wisdom of what you are doing to address the problem. Other states have done exactly that, and they have reduced prison costs without any sacrifice in public safety. That fact is indisputable and acknowledged by both ends of the political spectrum. To coin a phrase, it's getting smart on crime, not tough.

Back to my original point. I never said that it's OK to break into someone's house. "I hate thieves"--that's quoting myself. If it wasn't clear, let me underscore it: A thief belongs in jail. That's one reason I don't own a gun. I hate thieves so much that I couldn't trust myself not to shoot one in the back as he fled my house, which would likely land me in jail. What I wrote seems clear to me, and I know what I think. Please do not extrapolate or distort to the point of reversing entirely my original statement.

Nonviolent drug offenders don't belong in prison. Elderly inmates who are bedridden with enormously expensive medical issues who pose no threat to anyone don't belong in prison. People who don't pay child support don't belong in prison. Illinois is now incarcerating all of these sorts of people, and plenty more whose need to be in prison is, a the very least, highly debatable.

I hope that this clarifies my position. And if you want to keep doing what we're doing while other states have demonstrated that there is a better way, go ahead and pay for it. You already are.



SG_67 said:


> ^ If they broke into your house while you were away, that's a non-violent offense, no?


----------



## SG_67

^ I'll guarantee you somewhere in the supply chain of which your "non violent" drug criminal obtained his inventory, there was some violence involved.

You seem to countenance some crimes while decrying others. Interesting when the crime hits you directly, as when someone breaks into your home and steals, you get worked up. But drugs?


----------



## Shaver

^ Remind me: why are some drugs illegal exactly?


----------



## Acct2000

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'll guarantee you somewhere in the supply chain of which your "non violent" drug criminal obtained his inventory, there was some violence involved.
> 
> You seem to countenance some crimes while decrying others. Interesting when the crime hits you directly, as when someone breaks into your home and steals, you get worked up. But drugs?


Plenty of people do drugs without having to steal, especially marijuana. They still actually jail people for that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

That may or may not be true. If a drug addict is caught stealing, prosecute him for theft. If a drug addict robs someone, prosecute him for robbery. If a drug addict mugs someone, prosecute for assault and theft. If a drug dealer shoots a rival, prosecute him for murder. And so on. But do not send him to prison simply because he bought or sold drugs.

What people want to put into their own bodies should be their own business. If drugs were legal, the cost would go down and the need to commit crimes to obtain drugs would decrease. Countries that have legalized all drugs, notably Portugal, have seen decreases in both crimes and drug use. I am not making this up. See?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

The drug warriors with skin in the game would have us believe that human physiology and cultural things are somehow so different in Portugal that the same thing would not happen here. They use this argument to justify a continued "war on drugs" that is as costly as it is ineffective. It would be one thing if the drug warriors could cite a splinter of evidence that shows that criminalizing drugs has led to a decrease in use and a reduction in crime. They cannot do that. Instead, they rely on trying to prove a negative--well, if we didn't do what we're doing, it would be a lot worse--to support continued mass incarceration and sundry other law enforcement expenditures aimed at convincing people to stop doing stuff that experience has shown they will not stop doing unless or until they have decided themselves to stop.

As for countenancing some crimes while decrying others, it's a pretty safe bet that if illegal drugs didn't cost umpteen times more than they should due to their black market status, junkies wouldn't have to break into so many homes to feed their habits. Surely you must grasp this. If you don't read up on Portugal. It would be worth your time.



SG_67 said:


> ^ I'll guarantee you somewhere in the supply chain of which your "non violent" drug criminal obtained his inventory, there was some violence involved.
> 
> You seem to countenance some crimes while decrying others. Interesting when the crime hits you directly, as when someone breaks into your home and steals, you get worked up. But drugs?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Excellent point. It is also true that lots of people get killed in drug wars, particularly south of the border, in turf battles over illegal marijuana trafficking. Legalize and those cells, and graves, are no longer full.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Plenty of people do drugs without having to steal, especially marijuana. They still actually jail people for that.


----------



## 32rollandrock

1. Because the government doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves.
2. Because there's big money involved in keeping drugs illegal--think of all the cops and prison guards and prosecutors and defense attorneys who would be out of work if drugs were legal. Don't believe it? Look at election returns in California, where the most recent effort to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes failed. Tellingly, voters in the so-called Green Triangle in counties north of San Francisco, a region famous for marijuana cultivation, rejected legalization. There are diametrically opposed explanations for this. One school of thought is, Green Triangle voters thought pot growing has been such a scourge that they wanted to limit it as much as possible. The other school of thought is, voters believed that legalization would devalue the local crop, and so they voted against legalization out of economic interests. I subscribe to the latter school of thought.



Shaver said:


> ^ Remind me: why are some drugs illegal exactly?


----------



## Shaver

^ As I understand it originally, when opium was virtually the only effective palliative, the medical profession required a monopoly on its distribution. Why bother training to be a doctor when the sole worthwhile substance you can prescribe is freely available at the grocers? 

In the early part of the 20th Century, several minor American public officials with a purview for consideration of narcotics embarked upon a successful period of empire building armed with the usual religious hysteria - anything fun is bad. And so, little by little, the freely available processed vegetable matter became illegal to own. Previously it was considered proper that certain activities were criminal but suddenly mere possession of an item became an illegal act in and of itself, a troubling precedent and one now so firmly ingrained in law that we cannot imagine it any other way.


----------

