540 replies to this topic

[Mike in STL]

The cop had his gun drawn at his back and followed him around the car. Put your gun away and tackle him. Partner slap the cuffs on.

You don’t pull your gun out until deadly force is authorized, and it 100% wasn’t authorized when the gun was pulled. He should have never gotten to the car door. When he gets to the car door where the weapon is, he could shoot you with his back to you. So while the optics are bad that he was shot in the back, if you see a gun, you don’t have to wait for him to turn around, point it at you...it’s too late then. But if you don’t see a gun, you still can’t shoot him. With a knife, you can take 5 steps back and issue one warning to drop it if he turns around with it. Another variable, does he get in the car and try to drive off, now you get into a high speed car chase with and armed man with kids in the car.

Never in a million years should he have been able to get to that car door though. I’d be willing to bet these cops are taught to use your gun to gain compliance. In Baltimore it’s step 1 in use of force. In the coast guard it’s step 6 and only when deadly force is authorized does your gun come out.

I believe the Coast Guard is also what Federal Law Enforcement goes by. Reform shouldn’t be hard. Throw out your books. Install the federal standard which is a much much clearer, and fair use of force policy.

[mweb08]

Sheesh for the last time. I made one current relevant example and gave you my thoughts. If you want to judge me on that then so be it.

I asked a question where you had a significant number of cases to consider, so it shouldn't have been difficult to provide some examples where you sided with the victim. If you had done so or do so going forward, that would honestly change my perception.

[russsnyder]

The cop had his gun drawn at his back and followed him around the car. Put your gun away and tackle him. Partner slap the cuffs on.

You don’t pull your gun out until deadly force is authorized, and it 100% wasn’t authorized when the gun was pulled. He should have never gotten to the car door. When he gets to the car door where the weapon is, he could shoot you with his back to you. So while the optics are bad that he was shot in the back, if you see a gun, you don’t have to wait for him to turn around, point it at you...it’s too late then. But if you don’t see a gun, you still can’t shoot him. With a knife, you can take 5 steps back and issue one warning to drop it if he turns around with it. Another variable, does he get in the car and try to drive off, now you get into a high speed car chase with and armed man with kids in the car.

Never in a million years should he have been able to get to that car door though. I’d be willing to bet these cops are taught to use your gun to gain compliance. In Baltimore it’s step 1 in use of force. In the coast guard it’s step 6 and only when deadly force is authorized does your gun come out.

I believe the Coast Guard is also what Federal Law Enforcement goes by. Reform shouldn’t be hard. Throw out your books. Install the federal standard which is a much much clearer, and fair use of force policy.

Good post and good clarification on the use of force. Your point about tackling the guy is excellent. I thought it was pretty strange that Blake was almost casually walking to his car door.

[The Epic]

Unless they're gonna try to say he was threatening the kids, there is no way any of the above apply.  You can't be an imminent threat to a police officer with your back turned to him.  Unless being farted on counts as serious bodily harm.

 

My wife would like to comment here.

 

But yeah, you're right. If you can tell me that the kids' lives were in absolute danger, then, and only then, would I change my tune. 

 

If I have a gun and the dude says, "I'm going to get my knife," my first thought is "LOL ok"

 

There were multiple opportunities to either deescalate or just deaden the confrontation. Multiple. None of them happened. Is that bad training, or were they doing specifically what they were trained to do? If the former, that's on the department. If the latter, that's on the entire institution of policing in general.

[mweb08]

Also it feels like the whole point of our justice system is we let people who've done bad things, allegedly or not, go to trial and not let the police serve as judge, jury and executioner

Agreed, and I'll let Sarah Spain elaborate:

https://twitter.com/...3870828546?s=19

[The Epic]

I may be the only one here who'll say it, but I sympathize with Tony's viewpoint. This rush to judgment from people untrained on threats to police .... I've grown tired of it. I want my sports to be refuge from it.

 

I'm disappointed in MLB sticking it in my face that I must be racist when I don't agree with narrative that the "seven shots in the back" automatically equates into police misconduct. Because I don't. Perhaps since they don't have to play when they don't feel like it, MLB ought to give me back my mlb.tv subscription money.

 

I'm not going to argue with you here (though there's plenty to argue about) but Tony has been on "this side" of several racially tinged viewpoints, from Freddie Gray, to Kaep, to the Ravens in London, to the incidents noted above, to Adam Jones, to now. 

 

Something to keep in mind.

[The Epic]

BTW, it should be noted that (WNBA aside), the Ravens had the -best- written statement of any team.

 

https://www.pennlive...acob-blake.html

[BSLRoseKatz]

My wife would like to comment here.

 

But yeah, you're right. If you can tell me that the kids' lives were in absolute danger, then, and only then, would I change my tune. 

 

If I have a gun and the dude says, "I'm going to get my knife," my first thought is "LOL ok"

 

There were multiple opportunities to either deescalate or just deaden the confrontation. Multiple. None of them happened. Is that bad training, or were they doing specifically what they were trained to do? If the former, that's on the department. If the latter, that's on the entire institution of policing in general.

Yeah the saying "don't bring a knife to gunfight" exists for a reason

[The Epic]

Yeah the saying "don't bring a knife to gunfight" exists for a reason

 

I literally was going to include that and felt it was too on-the-nose. Thank you for filling it in! LOL

[The Epic]

Sheesh for the last time. I made one current relevant example and gave you my thoughts. If you want to judge me on that then so be it.

 

Steve, can I pick your brain? Just curious as to your views. Not trying to be contentious; just trying to see your stance.

 

Breonna Taylor's death. Where do you stand on the cops' involvement there? 

 

Based on what you know now, how about Freddie Gray?

 

Based on what you know now, how about Eric Garner?

 

Do you believe that any of those cops in the above situations should have been arrested/charged/convicted?

[Mackus]

I may be the only one here who'll say it, but I sympathize with Tony's viewpoint. This rush to judgment from people untrained on threats to police .... I've grown tired of it. I want my sports to be refuge from it.

 

I'm disappointed in MLB sticking it in my face that I must be racist when I don't agree with narrative that the "seven shots in the back" automatically equates into police misconduct. Because I don't. Perhaps since they don't have to play when they don't feel like it, MLB ought to give me back my mlb.tv subscription money.

 

Forgive me for jumping threads to respond to your post, wanted to move it to where Chris wants the conversation, hope you don't mind...

 

I think you're kind of talking about two separate things.  The first is questioning whether this was a clean shoot or not.  That's certainly an open point of contention, we've discussed it in this thread.  More information will hopefully come out, but since the cops don't have body cameras all we can rely on the witness camera phone videos we have.  To most of us it looks really bad on the surface, but we've discussed the reasons that may it isn't as indefensible as it seems.  Your opinion here given your profession would carry lots of weight, particularly from the legal standpoints of when a officer is justified to shoot.  But still, they shot this guy in the back.  Unless they say he was actively threatening the kids, I think it's going to be hard to justify.  He wasn't actively threatening the police.  He wasn't fleeing in the car and possibly endangering others.  Maybe he was threatening the kids?

 

The second I think is a pretty bad argument.  You seem to be saying "just stick to sports".  I strongly dislike that opinion. 

 

Also, and this isn't directed towards you but sort of tangentially replies to part of your comment.  I think someone can do or think or say something racist without being "a racist".  You don't need to attend klan rallies to occasionally have the wrong thoughts or actions.  I have bad thoughts that I'm embarrassed by often times.  You can't help what pops into your head.  You can try to work to have different reactions.  You can work on not acting on those thoughts, subconsciously or actively.  I think there are relatively few clear racist people left out there.  And nobody likes or respects them anyways.  I think the main push seems to be acknowledging and hopefully reducing/eliminating racist acts by individuals and by institutions.

[russsnyder]

BTW, it should be noted that (WNBA aside), the Ravens had the -best- written statement of any team.

https://www.pennlive...acob-blake.html

Meh.

I will say it's a good job of setting up the week one boycott by the NFL.

[DuffMan]

Yeah the saying "don't bring a knife to gunfight" exists for a reason

 

 

I literally was going to include that and felt it was too on-the-nose. Thank you for filling it in! LOL

[mweb08]

The second I think is a pretty bad argument. You seem to be saying "just stick to sports". I strongly dislike that opinion.

Also, and this isn't directed towards you but sort of tangentially replies to part of your comment. I think someone can do or think or say something racist without being "a racist". You don't need to attend klan rallies to occasionally have the wrong thoughts or actions. I have bad thoughts that I'm embarrassed by often times. You can't help what pops into your head. You can try to work to have different reactions. You can work on not acting on those thoughts, subconsciously or actively. I think there are relatively few clear racist people left out there. And nobody likes or respects them anyways. I think the main push seems to be acknowledging and hopefully reducing/eliminating racist acts by individuals and by institutions.

I disagree regarding how many clear racists are out there and the level of respect they get, but good post overall.

Regarding the stick to sports element, I very much agree.

As I've said here and elsewhere, wanting people to be treated equally shouldn't even be a political statement in the year, 2020. Yet, that's precisely what so many have complained about when they mention politics in sports. Furthermore, many of these same people don't have an issue with the militazeration and nationalism featured in sports, nor with any heroification of police.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I have debated all night whether I was going to respond on this thread anymore or not. But since I didn't sleep last night I did some thinking and I figured out why this thread was so upsetting. Its probably the engineer in me but here's what I came to. You can't ask someone what seems to be a simple question and then make a broad conclusion based on their answer. 

 

The question asked was when a cop shoots a black man is your first thought that the black man was in the wrong? What do you come to if they answer yes?

 

a. They are racist

b. They aren't racist

c. Don't have enough information.

 

If you jump to a then you are being just as "guilty' as what you are assuming the person who answered was. This would be a great example of incomplete science. What wasn't asked was the obvious second question. If a cop shoots a white man is your first thought that the white man was wrong? Now lets say that person answered yes once again. Now what do you come to?

 

a. They are racist.

b. They tend to favor police over alleged perps.

c. Don't have enough information.

 

Lets say they answered no to both questions. So now what do you ascertain?

a. They are  not racist.

b. They tend to favor civilians over cops.

c. Don't have enough information.

 

There are probably people out there who would answer no to both questions but are in fact racist. But they have a deep rooted dislike of cops more so than their dislike of a particular race. 

[The Epic]

Meh.

I will say it's a good job of setting up the week one boycott by the NFL.

 

Based on the lack of power that the players hold in the NFL, I think that's a very unlikely scenario. But hey, I've been surprised before.

[The Epic]

I have debated all night whether I was going to respond on this thread anymore or not. But since I didn't sleep last night I did some thinking and I figured out why this thread was so upsetting. Its probably the engineer in me but here's what I came to. You can't ask someone what seems to be a simple question and then make a broad conclusion based on their answer. 

 

The question asked was when a cop shoots a black man is your first thought that the black man was in the wrong? What do you come to if they answer yes?

 

a. They are racist

b. They aren't racist

c. Don't have enough information.

 

If you jump to a then you are being just as "guilty' as what you are assuming the person who answered was. This would be a great example of incomplete science. What wasn't asked was the obvious second question. If a cop shoots a white man is your first thought that the white man was wrong? Now lets say that person answered yes once again. Now what do you come to?

 

a. They are racist.

b. They tend to favor police over alleged perps.

c. Don't have enough information.

 

Lets say they answered no to both questions. So now what do you ascertain?

a. They are  not racist.

b. They tend to favor civilians over cops.

c. Don't have enough information.

 

There are probably people out there who would answer no to both questions but are in fact racist. But they have a deep rooted dislike of cops more so than their dislike of a particular race. 

 

#1: Dude, get some sleep. Not getting sleep is the -worst-.

 

#2: I think you're getting a little too in-the-weeds here, and look at this from 30,000 ft. As far as I know, nobody is calling you racist. 

 

Since the institution of policing has begun (which, based on the racist beginnings of policing, should be looked into), it's been documented that law enforcement has negatively and disproportionately influenced the black community. Every detail of them beating up/maiming/killing black people is just contributing to the overall structure. For every Jacob Blake, Breonna Taylor, etc, there's 50 or more people that we do NOT know about, simply because 1) it's not on video, and 2) they just don't have the means to get their word out and prove that what happened, happened. Cell phones haven't existed this entire time. Murders, rapes, threats, extortion, destruction of property. This has been happening forever, and has rarely ended with convictions. 

 

That's specifically why people are noting that in these situations, the cop needs to lose the benefit of the doubt. They are supposed to protect/serve, be held to a higher standard, and the film is finally proving otherwise. The stuff that has been coming up over the past few months should make any reasonable person question the entirety of the institution (not saying they will come to the same conclusion I will; just saying that it'll give a person significant pause), and should cause those people with that opinion to listen to the people who were screaming this 15, 20, 40, 60 years ago. The institution is flawed...maybe irreparably.

 

So let's start with question 1. If a person comes to the conclusion that, with no video proof, that the black person is in the wrong, I think they're purposefully biased toward cops, and still believe that the police get the benefit of the doubt from the beginning. That does not say that you're racist...just that you're automatically siding with the institution that's based in racism. However, that also doesn't say that you ARE NOT racist.

 

With question 2, that does not change. 

 

As you said re: #3, there could be a person that is anti-cop and still unabashedly racist. A subsection of the most hardcore libertarians usually fit that mold.

 

Once you get some sleep, I hope you'll answer my questions. 

[NewMarketSean]

I don't understand why people get so angry that opinionated people who happen to be athletes use what power they have to make a statement. 

 

Yes, sports is supposed to be an escape from life but it is played by people who have the same thoughts about things as everyone else.

 

Asking them to stay quiet on things they feel very strongly about is not fair.

 

And as for Tony's rant on closing down OH, if he thinks this is just about Jacob Blake he has had his head in the sand for the last 5+ years.

[russsnyder]

Based on the lack of power that the players hold in the NFL, I think that's a very unlikely scenario. But hey, I've been surprised before.

 

 I think the difference is that the NFL is pretty much on board with the social justice element to all of this.

 

 The optics for the league would be poor if they put up a fight on a boycott right now.

 

 All of the other major sports have staged a boycott, I'd be surprised if the NFL did not follow.

[dorfmac]

Since the institution of policing has begun (which, based on the racist beginnings of policing, should be looked into), it's been documented that law enforcement has negatively and disproportionately influenced the black community. Every detail of them beating up/maiming/killing black people is just contributing to the overall structure. For every Jacob Blake, Breonna Taylor, etc, there's 50 or more people that we do NOT know about, simply because 1) it's not on video, and 2) they just don't have the means to get their word out and prove that what happened, happened. Cell phones haven't existed this entire time. Murders, rapes, threats, extortion, destruction of property. This has been happening forever, and has rarely ended with convictions. 

 

That's specifically why people are noting that in these situations, the cop needs to lose the benefit of the doubt. They are supposed to protect/serve, be held to a higher standard, and the film is finally proving otherwise. The stuff that has been coming up over the past few months should make any reasonable person question the entirety of the institution (not saying they will come to the same conclusion I will; just saying that it'll give a person significant pause), and should cause those people with that opinion to listen to the people who were screaming this 15, 20, 40, 60 years ago. The institution is flawed...maybe irreparably.

 

Great post, and the only thing that I'll comment on is just because race is the lens through which we are looking at policing right now, this applies to so many other groups besides people of color. Impoverished people, indigenous peoples, women, sexual orientation and identity, different neighborhoods, etc. are all groups of people that experience a different type of policing than someone like me, the middle class suburban white professional man. 

 

I don't say this to downplay the experience of black men or throw in a "but what about so and so" argument, but more so as a response to anyone who claims "colorblindness" and refuses to acknowledge the role that race plays. If someone doesn't want to acknowledge the race part, there are plenty of other lenses through which to view and acknowledge the flaws and double-standards in our policing and justice system.

 

The institution of policing, in America and elsewhere, has always been the mechanism by which the state is able to maintain and enforce power. They protect a system which we know, in practice from the beginning, protects the interests of those who created and run it over the rest. What we are seeing has always been going on, but is also the logical extension and outcome of policing as it is designed.