Is America a Police state?

[freethinker44]

Yeah, that's crazy.

The reason that's crazy is that the police are in the unique position of having no idea what they will face upon making any arrest. Even in my rural area something as simple as a domestic dispute can turn violent toward the police.

It's crazy to have them wait for backup if they don't think they subdue an unarmed person without shooting them? As long as they aren't an imminent danger to the community or the officer, there is no reason to confront them without backup if you think you will overpowered and killed in a fight.

And that last line... how do you go about that exactly? Where do you draw the line between protecting yourself and resisting arrest?

Simple, if the police unnecessarily escalate the situation, it should be legal to match their use of force, even if you're totally guilty of what they are trying to arrest you for. Everyone has a right to protect themselves, even against the police.

 

[Underhill]

It's crazy to have them wait for backup if they don't think they subdue an unarmed person without shooting them? As long as they aren't an imminent danger to the community or the officer, there is no reason to confront them without backup if you think you will overpowered and killed in a fight.

No, it's crazy to assume they can assess the situation with 100% certainty before they enter a residence or get into the situation. A police officer is making an educated guess as to what he will run into at that point.

Simple, if the police unnecessarily escalate the situation, it should be legal to match their use of force, even if you're totally guilty of what they are trying to arrest you for. Everyone has a right to protect themselves, even against the police.

Who judges that? You are creating an impossible situation for the courts, not to mention the officers. 2 officers walk into a situation and 'escalate' things, they will simply claim you started it (not all that different from what they do now).

It may suck for that small percentage of the time when the police do the wrong thing, but telling people to fight back when they think the police are going to far sets a dangerous stream of events in motion that could lead to more deaths on both sides.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who judges that? You are creating an impossible situation for the courts, not to mention the officers. 2 officers walk into a situation and 'escalate' things, they will simply claim you started it (not all that different from what they do now).

Several years ago (I'll try and find links, but this was back when physical newspapers were still common), some undercover cops did escalate a situation, and the man they were after drew a gun on them (he didn't know they were cops). But the only thing they actually had on the guy was that he drew his gun on them (he didn't fire it). The police tried to have him charged, but the judge ruled given the circumstances that they were undercover and because there was sufficient evidence to show the undercover cops were the ones who escalated the situation, the man was found not-guilty (I think, if I remember correctly, the man in question used self-defense as his court defense, and the judge sided with it). These police officers, because the man made them "fear for their lives," pushed to have him retried, for the same crime; it never happened, because of course that would be double-jeopardy.

 

[freethinker44]

No, it's crazy to assume they can assess the situation with 100% certainty before they enter a residence or get into the situation. A police officer is making an educated guess as to what he will run into at that point.

OK, we're talking about situations where there is no imminent threat, so there would be no reason not to wait for backup or enter a residence by theirself. This would eliminate the 'need' to shoot unarmed people who 'charge' police, if there are multiple police there then there is no excuse to 'fear for their life' because the guy might have over powered them.

Who judges that? You are creating an impossible situation for the courts, not to mention the officers. 2 officers walk into a situation and 'escalate' things, they will simply claim you started it (not all that different from what they do now).

It may suck for that small percentage of the time when the police do the wrong thing, but telling people to fight back when they think the police are going to far sets a dangerous stream of events in motion that could lead to more deaths on both sides.

It's not an impossible situation. There are tons of situations where police unnecessarily escalate a nonviolent situation to violence. Just read through this thread, it's filled with them. In those situations it should not be another criminal charge for people to defend themselves. Again, just read through this thread, a lot of the people charged with resisting arrest were clearly just trying to deflect blows to their face from police. Because they don't put their hands behind their backs and let the police kick them in the face they are resisting. Everyone should be able to defend themselves.

See here, it's not impossible:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html

 

[Underhill]

Several years ago (I'll try and find links, but this was back when physical newspapers were still common), some undercover cops did escalate a situation, and the man they were after drew a gun on them (he didn't know they were cops). But the only thing they actually had on the guy was that he drew his gun on them (he didn't fire it). The police tried to have him charged, but the judge ruled given the circumstances that they were undercover and because there was sufficient evidence to show the undercover cops were the ones who escalated the situation, the man was found not-guilty (I think, if I remember correctly, the man in question used self-defense as his court defense, and the judge sided with it). These police officers, because the man made them "fear for their lives," pushed to have him retried, for the same crime; it never happened, because of course that would be double-jeopardy.

Yes, that is what happens when the police are honest. But we are talking about measures to help deal with the problem of violent officers. In which case the man who pulls a gun isn't likely to come out of that circumstance alive. And who is going to tell the judge and family that? Does anyone believe the officers are going to say oops, and hand over their badges?

 

[Underhill]

OK, we're talking about situations where there is no imminent threat, so there would be no reason not to wait for backup or enter a residence by theirself. This would eliminate the 'need' to shoot unarmed people who 'charge' police, if there are multiple police there then there is no excuse to 'fear for their life' because the guy might have over powered them.

You say that, but in the last year I've seen several videos where officers claimed just that. And if the man being arrested pulls a gun, multiple officers who aren't armed will be just as useless as one unarmed officer.

It's not an impossible situation. There are tons of situations where police unnecessarily escalate a nonviolent situation to violence. Just read through this thread, it's filled with them. In those situations it should not be another criminal charge for people to defend themselves. Again, just read through this thread, a lot of the people charged with resisting arrest were clearly just trying to deflect blows to their face from police. Because they don't put their hands behind their backs and let the police kick them in the face they are resisting. Everyone should be able to defend themselves.

See here, it's not impossible:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html

Listen, I'm not saying you're wrong about what should be. But I live in the real world, where telling people to defend themselves against police, as a policy initiative, is going to be seen by officers as an escalation. That is a dangerous game.

The police show up to arrest a suspected pot dealer. The man, thinking his life is in jeopardy, pulls a gun and tells them to leave him alone. Now you have a situation that could easily end in disaster.

And I am not talking about putting your hands in front of your face. Any officer who calls that resisting is a lying sack. But there in lies the problem. Bad cops suck. Putting all cops at greater risk will do nothing to solve that problem.

Technically, so far as I know, there is nothing that says a person cannot defend themselves from the police if they are being abused or wrongfully accused. Would I tell my children to resist in that situation? Hell no. I would have to be out of my mind. You submit and bring it to the attention of someone after the fact. In the real world that is the smart play.

 

[freethinker44]

You say that, but in the last year I've seen several videos where officers claimed just that. And if the man being arrested pulls a gun, multiple officers who aren't armed will be just as useless as one unarmed officer.

Exactly, they always claim that. And there's no reason for it. If they don't think they can take the guy without lethal force, they should have to wait for backup to arrive, unless of course they believe the guy is about to hurt someone before backup arrives. No 'what if' scenarios should be allowed. What if the guy pulls a gun, then if and only if they have positive identification on a gun should lethal force be authorized, and even then only if the the guy points the gun at the officers.

Listen, I'm not saying you're wrong about what should be. But I live in the real world, where telling people to defend themselves against police, as a policy initiative, is going to be seen by officers as an escalation. That is a dangerous game.

The police show up to arrest a suspected pot dealer. The man, thinking his life is in jeopardy, pulls a gun and tells them to leave him alone. Now you have a situation that could easily end in disaster.

And I am not talking about putting your hands in front of your face. Any officer who calls that resisting is a lying sack. But there in lies the problem. Bad cops suck. Putting all cops at greater risk will do nothing to solve that problem.

Technically, so far as I know, there is nothing that says a person cannot defend themselves from the police if they are being abused or wrongfully accused. Would I tell my children to resist in that situation? Hell no. I would have to be out of my mind. You submit and bring it to the attention of someone after the fact. In the real world that is the smart play.

I wouldn't resist either, unless I thought the officer was going to kill me. To me it would be much better to let them kick my *** and get sweet settlement in court later, but if I thought I was going to be killed I would do everything possible to save my life including killing the officer trying to kill me and any officers assisting them. And that shouldn't be illegal. And technically it's not. We do have precedence in court that allows citizens to defend themselves against police, but it almost never works as a defense.

 

[Underhill]

Exactly, they always claim that. And there's no reason for it. If they don't think they can take the guy without lethal force, they should have to wait for backup to arrive, unless of course they believe the guy is about to hurt someone before backup arrives. No 'what if' scenarios should be allowed. What if the guy pulls a gun, then if and only if they have positive identification on a gun should lethal force be authorized, and even then only if the the guy points the gun at the officers.

A gun being pulled is a 'what if' scenario. And I can think of a half dozen others where lethal force could be justified.

Setting that aside, it sounds like you are arguing for the way things currently are. The law doesn't say police can use lethal force whenever they like. This doesn't mean they always follow the law, or tell the truth about what happened, or make the right judgement about when to use lethal force. But the law doesn't allow them to shoot on sight. Where I think you are going wrong is this notion that there is some shift in behavior, that there is some thought process behind the decision to act in self defense. An officer always has to be prepared for the worst case scenario or he is putting himself at risk. So 'authorization' is usually a split second decision. It's not really all that surprising that they sometimes get it wrong by accident.

The ones that make me sick are when they shoot a guy running away, or choke a man who is obviously not a threat. In these cases we should be throwing the book at the officers responsible.

I wouldn't resist either, unless I thought the officer was going to kill me. To me it would be much better to let them kick my *** and get sweet settlement in court later, but if I thought I was going to be killed I would do everything possible to save my life including killing the officer trying to kill me and any officers assisting them. And that shouldn't be illegal. And technically it's not. We do have precedence in court that allows citizens to defend themselves against police, but it almost never works as a defense.

Which is what I have been saying...

 

[Revoltingest]

To me it would be much better to let them kick my *** and get sweet settlement in court later......

Be sure you have a good recording of the event.
Of the people I know who got beaten by cops, none ever got a settlement (no videos back then).
Moreover, being beaten is evidence that you're guilty of resisting arrest & creating a disturbance.

......I thought I was going to be killed I would do everything possible to save my life including killing the officer trying to kill me and any officers assisting them. And that shouldn't be illegal. And technically it's not. We do have precedence in court that allows citizens to defend themselves against police, but it almost never works as a defense.

It's theoretically legal to defend yourself with deadly force, but you're unlikely to prevail in court.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indianapolis is considering allowing "stop and frisk." Fortunately, it's not likely to pass (the mayor said it won't happen), but that it's even being considered as an atrocity.

 

[Mycroft]

America is one of the most successful totalitarian dictatorships ever made.

 

[freethinker44]

America is one of the most successful totalitarian dictatorships ever made.

That's a little thick on the hyperbole. I don't think we're anywhere near a totalitarian dictatorship. I think we're heading that direction though.

 

[Adramelek]

America is one of the most successful totalitarian dictatorships ever made.

I would agree in a sense. Borak Obama has really helped us along the way towards a dictatorship.

 

[freethinker44]

I would agree in a sense. Borak Obama has really helped us along the way towards a dictatorship.

In what way, specifically?

 

[Paranoid Android]

You say that, but in the last year I've seen several videos where officers claimed just that. And if the man being arrested pulls a gun, multiple officers who aren't armed will be just as useless as one unarmed officer.



Listen, I'm not saying you're wrong about what should be. But I live in the real world, where telling people to defend themselves against police, as a policy initiative, is going to be seen by officers as an escalation. That is a dangerous game.

The police show up to arrest a suspected pot dealer. The man, thinking his life is in jeopardy, pulls a gun and tells them to leave him alone. Now you have a situation that could easily end in disaster.

And I am not talking about putting your hands in front of your face. Any officer who calls that resisting is a lying sack. But there in lies the problem. Bad cops suck. Putting all cops at greater risk will do nothing to solve that problem.

Technically, so far as I know, there is nothing that says a person cannot defend themselves from the police if they are being abused or wrongfully accused. Would I tell my children to resist in that situation? Hell no. I would have to be out of my mind. You submit and bring it to the attention of someone after the fact. In the real world that is the smart play.

The answer is obvious: Pacifism.

 

[Revoltingest]

One way to make cops unaccountable is to arrest anyone who catches them breaking the law....
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-turn-citizen-smartphone-video-33402552?singlePage=true

 

[Twilight Hue]

America is one of the most successful totalitarian dictatorships ever made.

I think it's a dystopian culture for the greater part. Pleasant on the surface, yet there's a vicious underbelly underneath it all.

 

[Revoltingest]

America is one of the most successful totalitarian dictatorships ever made.

While we don't really fit the word "totalitarian", that element in our government is definitely not the result of a dictatorship.
We freely elect & re-elect the people who send us in that direction, eg, Obama backed militarization of police.
Tyranny Of The Majority is our bane.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a you look a cop in the eye, you'll be ticketed.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/us/eye-contact-traffic-stop-ohio-police-officer/index.html

 

[psychoslice]

America has got what they deserve, the amount of crime there is there, needs a great amount of policing, so cut down on your crime and you won't need to worry.