Is America a Police state?

[bluegoo300]

So we're in agreement then, this "perceived threat is not "just following orders" its policy and no jury will convict if the officer feels threatened" is a major problem?

I think its a problem however with out it there would be 10 fold more dead officers in the US

 

[freethinker44]

well that may be however that's a national and international problem not an officers fault.

It is an officer's fault though. Each officer is responsible for their own actions, policies and order be damned. That's not a valid legal defense in the US. We don't get to do horrible things and then claim we were just following orders or policy or whatever, we are liable for our actions regardless.

 

[bluegoo300]

It is an officer's fault though. Each officer is responsible for their own actions, policies and order be damned. That's not a valid legal defense in the US. We don't get to do horrible things and then claim we were just following orders or policy or whatever, we are liable for our actions regardless.

so what your saying is if there is an order/policy saying don't kill someone I guess policies be damned ill kill them because I don't have to obey policies or orders for my job right?

 

[freethinker44]

I think its a problem however with out it there would be 10 fold more dead officers in the US

Not 10 fold. Police kill an average of 1000 Americans per year, only about 400 or so are deemed justified. So even if every officer that justifiably killed someone hesitated and died from it, it still wouldn't come close to 10 fold, and the number of officers killed would be far less than the number of innocent Americans killed by officers. Either way, I'm pretty sure their training would change to reflect the danger and they would be less inclined to put themselves in a dangerous situation where they don't have positive identification. If you're arguing that this would be worse than how it is now, you are effectively arguing that it is better for police to kill innocent people, just in case.

 

[bluegoo300]

Not 10 fold. Police kill an average of 1000 Americans per year, only about 400 or so are deemed justified. So even if every officer that justifiably killed someone hesitated and died from it, it still wouldn't come close to 10 fold, and the number of officers killed would be far less than the number of innocent Americans killed by officers. Either way, I'm pretty sure their training would change to reflect the danger and they would be less inclined to put themselves in a dangerous situation where they don't have positive identification. If you're arguing that this would be worse than how it is now, you are effectively arguing that it is better for police to kill innocent people, just in case.

if people did what officers ask in the first place it would not happen now would it. example if I tell you to keep your hands up, keep your hands up don't reach in your jacket.

 

[freethinker44]

so what your saying is if there is an order/policy saying don't kill someone I guess policies be damned ill kill them because I don't have to obey policies or orders for my job right?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. In every situation an officer should do the exact opposite of what their policy states even if it is the worst possible decision they could ever make in their entire life. And if the policy should state, "never follow policy", they should enter into an infinite decision loop where after some time of going back and forth, their heads will explode in a glorious spectacle of brain and bone.

Seriously dude, come on. Do I have to dignify this with an actual response? The first part was, again, sarcasm BTW.

 

[bluegoo300]

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. In every situation an officer should do the exact opposite of what their policy states even if it is the worst possible decision they could ever make in their entire life. And if the policy should state, "never follow policy", they should enter into an infinite decision loop where after some time of going back and forth, their heads will explode in a glorious spectacle of brain and bone.

Seriously dude, come on. Do I have to dignify this with an actual response? The first part was, again, sarcasm BTW.

what I'm getting at is you cant say be damn with policy, procedures, and orders its your job to follow them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

for your first part you must read the full story
"Lisa Mearkle, from Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, hit David Kassick with a stun gun and then shot him twice with her sidearm as he lay in the snow.
Mearkle, 37, told jurors she thought Kassick, 59, was trying to pull a gun from his jacket.
He was stopped for an expired inspection tag on his car, but drove away and then ran into the garden of his sister’s house, reports the New York Daily News.
Prosecutor Johnny Baer said Mearkle "took David's life without justification. Took it unnecessarily."
The footage from her stun gun’s camera shows Kassick's hands going underneath his body while Mearkle shouts at him to keep them up."
this man was not innocent he drove away from a officer then got out of his vehicle and ran there for she used her escalation of force protocols she used non-lethal force to take him down. then like I said before he then showed perceived threat by trying to reach into his jacket when the officer is specifically telling him not to. this man would have been charge with resisting arrest, running from police, and expired tags at minimum he was not innocent no innocent person has reason to run when being pulled over.
and also like I said before police must follow protocols we cant talk to media about other officers but things are done in the background, and lastly I would like to point out it not officers getting out of things in this case the jury acquitted her that's not police related that's the justice department.

We can see him being tased, see him going down, hear the cop yelling at a man convulsing from being shocked to stop moving, tase him again, and while he's on the ground he gets shot and killed. There is no justifying that.

 

[freethinker44]

if people did what officers ask in the first place it would not happen now would it. example if I tell you to keep your hands up, keep your hands up don't reach in your jacket.

Again, it's like you're just stating problems with the police. I agree, it is a problem that officers think that execution is an acceptable response to resistance of any kind.

 

[bluegoo300]

We can see him being tased, see him going down, hear the cop yelling at a man convulsing from being shocked to stop moving, tase him again, and while he's on the ground he gets shot and killed. There is no justifying that.

you can sit and nit pic at what you see on video but you have never been in a situation like that you don't know how you would react second he was given an order and did not follow it he when for something in is jacket its justified that's why she was acquitted.

 

[freethinker44]

what I'm getting at is you cant say be damn with policy, procedures, and orders its your job to follow them.

Tell that to all the Nazi's we executed. There was a case recently where a guy was just an accountant at a concentration camp. GUILTY!

If someone is or could ever be fired from a job for not using violence when they didn't need to, their job has serious systemic problems and is in desperate need of a policy overhaul/criminal investigation.

 

[bluegoo300]

Again, it's like you're just stating problems with the police. I agree, it is a problem that officers think that execution is an acceptable response to resistance of any kind.

do you mean officials because the police are officers "police officer"

 

[bluegoo300]

Tell that to all the Nazi's we executed. There was a case recently where a guy was just an accountant at a concentration camp. GUILTY!

If someone is or could ever be fired from a job for not using violence when they didn't need to, their job has serious systemic problems and is in desperate need of a policy overhaul/criminal investigation.

first that was a WAR second though were not split second decisions third THIS IS MURDER not I though they had a gun type deal.

 

[freethinker44]

We can see him being tased, see him going down, hear the cop yelling at a man convulsing from being shocked to stop moving, tase him again, and while he's on the ground he gets shot and killed. There is no justifying that.

Shocked non-stop no less. Like, the whole video even while she was shooting him.

 

[bluegoo300]

Shocked non-stop no less. Like, the whole video even while she was shooting him.

if you knew anything about tazers you would know he was convulsing from musle twitch after the tazer she did not taze him the whole time.

 

[freethinker44]

first that was a WAR second though were not split second decisions third THIS IS MURDER not I though they had a gun type deal.

Yup, those are more problems we have with police. Not only do they have lower standards for use of force than soldiers do, they also have less accountability. It's easier for a cop to get away with killing a US citizen than it is for a soldier to get away with killing an enemy combatant.

It used to be if they shot someone they were screwed if they didn't find a weapon to back up their "fear". Now it's just however they feel in the moment, whether it has any basis in reality or not. Like:

Officer: I feared for my life.
Investigator: Uh, you killed a seven year old girl asleep on a couch.
Officer: Yeah, uh, there was a lot of smoke from the flash bang.
Investigator: Well, alright then, I'm completely satisfied with this report. You sir, are an American hero. Consider the charges dropped!

Unfortunately, I didn't make up that exchange. True story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/aiyana-stanley-jones-joseph-weekley-trial_n_5824684.html

 

[freethinker44]

if you knew anything about tazers you would know he was convulsing from musle twitch after the tazer she did not taze him the whole time.

You can hear the tazer clicking the whole time. Even as she's shooting him. It's not till just after he is shot that the clicking stops.

 

[Robert.Evans]

yes I 100% agree with you what im saying is for example you stop someone for a traffic violation and ask for DL and proof of INS and they say **** You and refuse to cooperate you can not even raise your voice at them or you risk getting fired. I wish people would just cooperate we are here to protect and serve not harass and beat. second its very simple if you commit a crime you do the time no matter if your an officer or not.

****You and refuse to cooperate you can not even raise your voice at them or you risk getting fired.

Is that in US? I see UK officers raise their voice. People should take you seriously, I agree. In UK Robert Peel said 'the public are the police and the police the public'. We should all keep the law.

I wish people would just cooperate we are here to protect and serve not harass and beat

I think there will always be a fear of people with power (the police) who have, in basic terms, huge power, weapons, a large gang, and the law (at least at first) on their side. People therefore feel threatened. What I see of the police is an arrogant rude attitude and it is one of the biggest complaints in UK. Now, they are not all like that. There is also the problem of being stopped in the first place, which immediately makes one defensive because it suggests that you have done something wrong when you might not have (I am looking at it from the point of view of someone innocent).
Boy, I could go on. I could tell you lots of stories of police attitudes, driving etc, that are not right. But who is going to complain. Not a good idea I think. So there must be something wrong.
HOWEVER, I think it is probably the real offenders that makes it hard on everyone else. If we all complied and were polite, no doubt the police would do likewise. So it works both ways. But I still think the onus is on the police, because they have the power. Sometimes I think they forget they wear uniforms and have to prove it through their attitudes. Someone recently said that they thought the police were more aggressive now, I think he was right. The problem is when you push, some people will push back.
I am not against your comments however. But I think if people are feeling threatened (by perhaps the minority) something is definitely wrong, the proof is in the fact that people react that way in the first place.

Yet when we had the riots in London, in my opinion, they weren't hard enough.

 

[Robert.Evans]

it sounds that simple on paper however look at it from this perspective. we are given great training on almost all situations however situations under stress are hard to do in a training environment you never know how someone is going to react in a certain situation even if they have trained for it for years. real life is deferent then training. what we need is more stress related training.

It is difficult working with the public, I agree. That can be really hard. I have worked with them, and soon as you put a uniform on, whatever uniform it might be, you are a target. But I do think under certain stresses, the police should be allowed to react. I do not agree with people hurling abuse at someone (police or otherwise) and getting away with it just because there are a large number of them. To me, the law still applies. Unfortunately in those situations, it doesn't.

I think the police could work more with showing they are on the communities side, standing together against crime. What I see is a police force that wants you to know they have more power than you. That is a fundamental problem. People will react.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Somewhere in this thread are some sources that show that as far as being killed on the job go, police don't even rank in the top ten list of most dangerous jobs in the US,

Sure would be nice if you could find a source