|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Badblood I don't find that at all persuasive. We've seen a great many times that people who annoy police can be charged. Like when protestors are hauled off to jail and all of them charged with "resisting arrest" only to have the charges dismissed a day later. Some cops will tack on a charge just for the hell of it.
As a recent example, these two jerks.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/20/cops-ac cidentally-record-themselves-fabricating-charges-against-protester-lawsuit- says/?utm_term=.0dd4aa9024d4
On a related note, I'm always deeply skeptical of cases where officers shoot someone, and then find a gun or drugs in their car. Okay, sure, I wouldn't go so far as to default assume it's planted, but you didn't know about it when you shot that person.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@CrusaderWolf
I'm not trying to blame the victim...she was a 15 year girl and experimenting with drugs is a pretty normal part of growing up. It is entirely possible that they planted drugs on her (sure, why not?); but it more likely that she was actually holding. After all, tons and tons of people smoke pot. It is entirely possible that a teenager, who was shaken up by just walking away from an accident with a car, and who also happened to have some drugs in her backpack, might have freaked out and reacted badly to the cops.
Of course, the cops reacted to the situation in a way that was almost guaranteed to escalate emotions and require a violent resolution. And in violent conflict...the police are almost always going to win.
The point is, lots of people are out there using drugs, or in possession of drugs. Even though they are committing a crime, they still qualify to be protected and served by the police just as much as anyone else. But because we criminalize drugs so aggressively, those people have an additional risk when they interact with the police, even when they are the victims.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming her, just noting that it's a classic tactic. "Police overreacted" is followed by "Police found [a gun] [drugs] [whatever]" in the hopes of retroactively justifying their initial abusive behavior.
I think ending the drug war be an enormous step towards justice in this country, but that's not really a conversation for this thread.
|
|
The war on drugs is a major factor in determining what crimes are enforced, how resources are allocated, the training and equipment that police have, and how the role of the police in our society is defined. And I do think the fact that she was in possession of drugs (or the police planted drugs on her after the fact) is actually relevant to the issue.
|
|
IMO the best way to make police act in a professional manner would be to have a completely independent structure for investigating and prosecuting them. Right now there are massive dis-incentives for police to arrest their own or prosecutors to charge or convict them... because they all have to work together on other cases.
Cut that connection and there'd be a huge increase in convictions of police officers. Hell, the speeding / running red lights when NOT in pursuit of suspects or rushing to a scene citations alone would result in drivers license suspensions for half the cops in the country. That would lead to corresponding changes in behaviour.
A separate force could also handle investigations of other government employees (e.g. prosecutors, local politicians, zoning commissioners, et cetera) while they're at it. Right now some of those positions are almost routinely corrupt, again because the police actively avoid investigating or charging them.
Meanwhile, regular police could investigate potential crimes by the separate structure. An adversarial relationship / mutual hatred would help compel everyone to behave decently.
I think her possession or not of marijuana isn't all that relevant to be honest. The results of her encounter with police completely justify her not wanting to deal or cooperate with them in any way. The exact situation she feared (maybe not, she might have feared worse) did come to pass. It seems to me she had the correct reaction to seeing the police regardless of any amount of drugs she may have been carrying, fear, expectation of violence, and the knowledge that no matter what they did to her it would be excused and waived away with her becoming the scapegoat. Frankly, if every African-American attempted to flee from police in every situation, I'd be hard-pressed to say they were wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to note is that the girl was charged, along with some other charges, with marijuana possession. It is very likely that probably played into why she tried to get away from law enforcement. She may have ended up being charged with possession anyways if she had stayed and cooperated, and the police or EMTs ending up finding the drugs on her.
From watching the video it seemed like she simply wanted to get away; and things kind of escalated from there.Who knows how often someone flees from an officer or even chooses NOT to call the police after being the victim of a crime, because they are afraid that the real issue might end becoming the dime bag in their pocket or backpack?
that doesnt make any sense. If I'm injured, why does this give the cops license to search me illegally?
|
|
that doesnt make any sense. If I'm injured, why does this give the cops license to search me illegally?One thing to note is that the girl was charged, along with some other charges, with marijuana possession. It is very likely that probably played into why she tried to get away from law enforcement. She may have ended up being charged with possession anyways if she had stayed and cooperated, and the police or EMTs ending up finding the drugs on her.
From watching the video it seemed like she simply wanted to get away; and things kind of escalated from there.Who knows how often someone flees from an officer or even chooses NOT to call the police after being the victim of a crime, because they are afraid that the real issue might end becoming the dime bag in their pocket or backpack?
Well DUH Freehold, she was like black and like OMG there was police
Okay yeah I'm sorry I can't even complete the sarcasm -_-
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that doesnt make any sense. If I'm injured, why does this give the cops license to search me illegally?
Yeah, it's a little crazy, but apparently the state legislature passed a law that when a minor is in an accident the police have to take them to the hospital or have their parents refuse treatment. The kid isn't allowed to do it themself.
Overall, sounds like an effort to avoid lawsuits for failing to get kids treatment... but creates the truly bizarre situation of the police being required to detain a child who hasn't committed any crime.
Then why arrest her?
So she's breaking a law by not letting them force her to go to the hospital? You'd think they wouldn't need to make an arrest to get her there, if they're already legally obliged.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So she's breaking a law by not letting them force her to go to the hospital? You'd think they wouldn't need to make an arrest to get her there, if they're already legally obliged.
If she resists they would. Imagine the s!$~storm if she insists she's fine and they break protocol and let her go, then she drops dead from internal bleeding a few hours later." Cops break protocol and let black girl die "would be plastered all over the news. These laws exist for a reason. All she had to do was tell them how to contact her parents and they probably would have let her on her way. They can't leave an injured minor alone in the middle of the road just because said minor doesn't like the police.
I hate Americas police but disobedience and aggression for the sake of "f#&& the police" culture doesn't help anyone.
|
|
These laws exist for a reason.
Yes. To protect the government from financial liability.
All she had to do was tell them how to contact her parents and they probably would have let her on her way.
She is not legally required to identify herself... or her parents.
They can't leave an injured minor alone in the middle of the road just because said minor doesn't like the police.
Not only CAN they... in a free society they are required to do so. The police cannot detain a person for their own financial convenience. Thus, I expect, if that law ever came to trial it would be tossed out as a clear violation of civil rights.
Sure, and forcing her to come with them is fine if that's the law. But that's a law limiting their actions. Was she committing a crime?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, and forcing her to come with them is fine if that's the law. But that's a law limiting their actions. Was she committing a crime?
Apparently drug possession and possibly causing an accident.
The former wasn't a crime they were aware of before the fact, and it was not why they made an arrest. Additionally, neither of those crimes have anything to do with what thejeff and the others are talking about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only asked if she was committing a crime. Not whether it had anything to do with thejeff's comments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm trying to be polite, here, but...
*Writes and rewrites a bunch*
*Glares at computer and wills Aranna and NenkotaMoon to understand*
*It doesn't work because communication is a burden upon the shoulders of the sender and not the receiver*
*Sigh*
Context. There's f@*~ing context, Aranna, so don't be cute or obtuse. I was talking to thejeff and CBDunkerson about a specific subject and you chimed in.
Yeah, it's a little crazy, but apparently the state legislature passed a law that when a minor is in an accident the police have to take them to the hospital or have their parents refuse treatment. The kid isn't allowed to do it themself.
Overall, sounds like an effort to avoid lawsuits for failing to get kids treatment... but creates the truly bizarre situation of the police being required to detain a child who hasn't committed any crime.
Then why arrest her?
Because she resisted.
So she's breaking a law by not letting them force her to go to the hospital? You'd think they wouldn't need to make an arrest to get her there, if they're already legally obliged.
If she resists they would. Imagine the s*%!storm if she insists she's fine and they break protocol and let her go, then she drops dead from internal bleeding a few hours later." Cops break protocol and let black girl die "would be plastered all over the news. These laws exist for a reason. All she had to do was tell them how to contact her parents and they probably would have let her on her way. They can't leave an injured minor alone in the middle of the road just because said minor doesn't like the police.
Sure, and forcing her to come with them is fine if that's the law. But that's a law limiting their actions. Was she committing a crime?
I was not asking a blanket statement "Was a crime committed?". I was asking it in a context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
K-Cleaver,
You are charged with the crime of trying to make sense of a senseless world. You sentence is trying to get on the internet to make points to people that just want sound bites.
Also, I had brownies again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. That was removed in a move to further balance civil rights to improve the efficiency of finding terrorists. It was updated to "You have the right to answer our questions. Not doing so is thoughtcrime."
Sure, and forcing her to come with them is fine if that's the law. But that's a law limiting their actions. Was she committing a crime?Apparently drug possession and possibly causing an accident.
no fruit off the forbidden tree. I would love to know what probable cause statute is being tortured here.
And causing an accident? Whose word do they have on that? Did they witness it?
I am not buying the story that is being told here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between her committing a crime and the police having a legal obligation to detain her.
Most states have statutes that, ironically, allow police to detain individuals "for their own protection". The mentally ill, minors, the obviously-injured, and the obviously-impaired can all be held without being arrested "for their own good".
So the police were within their legal authority to detain her and prevent her from leaving, as it is indicated above that a state law required that she either be taken to a hospital or one of her parents or guardians be contacted.
That she became uncooperative and belligerent was unfortunate but understandable. (I've been hit by a car on my bike before, and all you want to do is get the h*** out of there. It hurts, you're shaken up, and everyone is staring at you.)
What the officers did after that was unconscionable.
I was under the impression that you had a right to remain silent. Is that just something they say on TV?
It is not as simple as shown on TV. Also, once you have been accused of being part of a vehicular collision, there are legal things you must go through.
Miranda Warning"The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda rights, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response."
Also:
"Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial."
I'm fairly sure that the police can (and my even be required?) to ask you questions to determine if you need an appointed attorney. These questions can get rather personal - who do you live with, and how much money do you get paid, type stuff. They can also ask you questions that are not about criminal activity.
Finally, if these "Rights" (Right to counsel and non-self incrimination) are violated, then what? Basically, she could sue the city/police, but there is no guarantee of satisfactory results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
That's generally true for police officers across the world, as far as I can tell. But, yes, it's quite rough being a policeman in the States.
On the one hand, police generally get very little support from the public, especially from the part of the public that they need to actually police. There was actually a significant marker of change in public opinion a decade or so ago, when "they" stopped teaching small children that if they got lost/separated in public, they should find a policeman, and started teaching them that they should find a mother. Apparently other people's mothers with small children of their own are now perceived as safer and more helpful than the actual "to protect and to serve" types.
On the other hand, police are asked -- told, really -- to enforce some really harsh and draconic policies that, of course, are set by people with little actual understanding of the realities of policing. And the only tools and training that they're given are weapons-related, because there's not enough money or political will for actual community outreach.
And the kind of cops that thrive under these conditions perform about as you'd expect. The kind that don't thrive leave the force; a classic case of selection pressure.
|
|
I would love to know what probable cause statute is being tortured here.
"Disorderly Conduct"
Which is all too often interpreted as, 'anything a police officer does not like'.
I don't see how the charges hold up though;
Not telling them who her parents are - Should be covered by her right to remain silent.
Attempting to leave / freaking out when they pulled her off the bicycle - Their supposed justification for detaining her was that they were required to take her to the hospital. However, the fact that they never DID take her to the hospital would seem to destroy that claim.
Marijuana possession - Result of an illegal search as part of inventoring her property after the improper detention.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was in a warzone, in a firefight and my squad captured enemy combatants and after we had them secured I chose to then use attack the detainees, I would have committed a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and should be brought up on charges, stripped of rank and sent to serve time in a military jail.
Realize that detainees are generally belligerent and have a recognized right and duty to attempt escape. In fact while the military force is expected to work diligently in retaining prisoners they are not supposed to punish those that attempt escape for the attempt in and of itself (the detaining force may however increase security measures so as to prevent escape).
The fact that an authority having gained control of the situation where someone (regardless of status of being a minor) who was already injured in a peaceful country and then the authority figure pepper sprays the injured and detained person angers and disgusts me.
The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.
Please note this is not questioning the detaining of the individual itself, merely the actions taken from there.
The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.
Well, you have to remember that policemen are in a stressful and dangerous environment. After all, the person they are attempting to subdue might have a weapon.... as opposed to in a war zone, where they are almost certain to have one. <evil grin>
(My apologies if the intended irony doesn't come through well. Text is a tricky medium.)
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Which is really awkward since we know this has been the safest time to be an officer in the USA in history. But your thoughts on the subject could be correct, a person's fears are rarely tied to a substantial threat to their persons.
Mixing that with weapons and authority / power never ends well
Understandable
Is my feeling substantiated ?
Feelings are weird in that they are not facts except as known to the person sharing them, so your feelings (that is to stay thoughts) on what another feels is hard to substantiate or dismiss
Is it time for Robocop yet ? (Pitiful attempt at levity)
I don't think it's that bad yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large
for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.
In fairness, US cops usually get away with murdering white people too. The big disparity is in how much more often they murder members of minority groups.
Basically... it's not just the racism. There's an element of fascist totalitarianism in there too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large
for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.
What I keep wondering is where all the 2nd amendment people are each time a police officer states, "the perpetrator was armed." as if that was an excuse for an execution.
Supposedly being armed in the USA is not a crime, and yet we keep hearing how that one fact somehow changes everything and makes shooting the person okay.
In Afghanistan everyone is armed (slight exaggeration) with full automatic weaponry, and yet that is not an excuse for Soldiers to go around shooting anyone that looks at them wrong. I don't see how it's an excuse for police officers.
Another one that came across my feed. Pretty lousy looking website, but I feel like I might want to access it later, so, bookmark.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large
for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.
I apologize if my words dismissed the victims' pain. It is not my intent
What I find very dangerous is scared people with weapons who feel justified in using them
Also I am not sure that general public opinion backs such killings. I am under the impression that the judicial system's response is a greater culprit here
I hope my words express my thoughts adequately. I feel very unsure as a non-native speaker about how people might understand them. Please point it out if I hurt people's feelings. It is really not my intent :-(
|
|
If I was in a warzone, in a firefight and my squad captured enemy combatants and after we had them secured I chose to then use attack the detainees, I would have committed a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and should be brought up on charges, stripped of rank and sent to serve time in a military jail.
Realize that detainees are generally belligerent and have a recognized right and duty to attempt escape. In fact while the military force is expected to work diligently in retaining prisoners they are not supposed to punish those that attempt escape for the attempt in and of itself (the detaining force may however increase security measures so as to prevent escape).
The fact that an authority having gained control of the situation where someone (regardless of status of being a minor) who was already injured in a peaceful country and then the authority figure pepper sprays the injured and detained person angers and disgusts me.
The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.
Please note this is not questioning the detaining of the individual itself, merely the actions taken from there.
Guantanamo springs to mind as just the most famous example, but not the only one, that being recognized as an enemy soldier indeed brings you privileges in war times
And some people will go to great lengths to avoid letting their opponents receive this status and the privileges that go with it
In peace time, apparently many things go and only your lawyer's wages might help you :-(
Guantanamo springs to mind as just the most famous example, but not the only one, that being recognized as an enemy soldier indeed brings you privileges in war times
And some people will go to great lengths to avoid letting their opponents receive this status and the privileges that go with it
In peace time, apparently many things go and only your lawyer's wages might help you :-(
I think you meant Abu Ghraib as to prove that bad things can happen to those in custody, as far as I know there has not be mistreatment of people in Guantanamo (if the people there belong in custody is a separate issue I have no intentions of discussing at all).
I do not dispute that bad things have happened to people in custody but typically those that do the bad things do become recognized and prosecuted. I know that is cold comfort to their victims but beyond training, attempting prevention and punishment for those that do infringe I do not know what else the military can do.
I believe that those same steps could handle the situation in the USA as well but that would require the police to punish those that do overstep and to take actions to prevent oversteps instead of finding reasons to justify them.
As such I don't think the current culture will allow the transition that needs to happen at this time.
Oh, there's been all kinds of allegations of mistreatment at Gitmo.
Google search "Guantanamo" and "torture" and you'll find some articles.
|
|
I'm just bemused that apparently the public is responsible for officers lapses in judgement.
In the sense that our ongoing tolerance of a justice system which fails to hold police accountable for such 'lapses in judgement' (an overly generous description in and of itself) encourages their continuation... yes the public is ultimately responsible.
That said, it is difficult to break that 'judicial system barrier'. Prosecutors and judges usually protect bad cops... and there is often nothing the public can do about individual prosecutors and judges.
Thus, our options are to change how police actions are investigated / prosecuted (my preference) or make a wholesale change to the culture of prosecutors and judges so that they more often hold police accountable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst situation I heard of in Sweden was an epileptic who had had a seizure unnoticed by anyone while out on town. He was postictal, which is a difficult situation due to poor inhibition, swaying, aggressiveness. A group of cops found him like that. They assumed he was a junkie and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him.
Generally, when I have tried to talk to policemen about the importance of showing restraint in using violence even if someone is not instantly complying... they do not even understand the question. They say "oh, that is no problem. If that happens, I just evaluate the risk of the situation and apply the correct amount of force."
We send the police out there because we want to keep people safe. We want a better result than sending out soldiers to kill everyone who does something suspicious. To do their job, the policemen need to be human and have a sense of empathy. It isn't all an equation about the level of risk. And if risk needs to be taken, the policemen are who we pay to take those risks. Safety is NOT job one for a cop. If we do not pay them enough, then that needs to be addressed, but that is another discussion.
If only our police force were held to the same standards as our soldiers in war zones. There would be so many court martials.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tolerating injustice to replace security is pretty much tantamount to saying "We don't care about these people, just us people."
Until it happens to us.