815 users online (103 members and 712 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 107
  1. #1
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,867

    NPR - Some Key Facts We've Learned About Police Shootings Over The Past Year


    We've done a lot of writing and reporting at Code Switch over the past year on deadly police shootings of unarmed black people, cases that have become such a part of our landscape that they have a tendency to melt into each other. Indeed, sometimes the pattern of facts seems to barely change: Just last fall, we followed the story of an unarmed black man in South Carolina who was shot following a police traffic stop. The officer in that shooting, like Michael Slager — the officer who shot Walter Scott in the back as he ran away after a traffic stop — was later fired and arrested once the video of that encounter surfaced and contradicted his initial report.

    While names and places change, the backdrop against which these stories play out does not. We decided to pull together what we've learned along the way, along with some thoughtful commentary from other outlets about this case and the larger questions it raises.


    link



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    One thing that I have noticed, that seems to be a pattern---the victims of the shootings were usually fleeing felons that were being aggressive and threatening before their demise.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    4,027
    Excellent article shadowraiths - thank-you. Such articles are meant to help make things better, imo.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    4,027
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    One thing that I have noticed, that seems to be a pattern---the victims of the shootings were usually fleeing felons that were being aggressive and threatening before their demise.
    With all due respect - the 'usually' argument is old and out of touch. If one reads the article to which you are replying, the Supreme Court decided fleeing is not a reason to shoot someone.

    One of the big problems there imo, if the door is opened one inch for one incident, the door eventually becomes wide open for future incidents. Where does it stop if no clear line is drawn? Cops are making their own rules - not at all how things started out.

    The recent beating of the guy in a California desert - horseback - says he was fleeing because cops have beat him before. Yeah he admits to felonies - you can't rid the country of 'undesirable' people with bullets. It's getting precariously close to history repeating itself imo.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    "It's crucial to remember that all these calamities play out against a backdrop of falling — even record-low — crime. As the anxieties around the kinds of crime that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s recedes, there's more space for us to ask what exactly it is we want our police to do, and whether stopping a jaywalker here or a person selling cigarettes there is worth introducing the prospect of deadly violence.''

    That is a disingenuous argument. The deadly violence was not 'introduced' because of the jaywalking or cig sales. It was 'introduced' because of the assault on the cops or the resisting of the arrest. Love the way NPR left that part out.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post
    With all due respect - the 'usually' argument is old and out of touch. If one reads the article to which you are replying, the Supreme Court decided fleeing is not a reason to shoot someone.

    One of the big problems there imo, if the door is opened one inch for one incident, the door eventually becomes wide open for future incidents. Where does it stop if no clear line is drawn? Cops are making their own rules - not at all how things started out.

    The recent beating of the guy in a California desert - horseback - says he was fleeing because cops have beat him before. Yeah he admits to felonies - you can't rid the country of 'undesirable' people with bullets. It's getting precariously close to history repeating itself imo.
    BBM

    I think you left something out of your statement. It is not correct the way you put it there. You left out the word UNLESS...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
    Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."



    See that part^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^above? >>>>>UNLESS the suspect poses a threat....
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    6,064
    I have to comment that while well written, this is an extremely biased article, against police officers, and justifying or rationalizing the behavior of those stopped by police he describes as insignificant, or not worth pursuing. I can't agree with that. Along with that, he has a lot of his facts wrong.

    For an example of the author's bias, the author repeatedly refers to the Scott case as a "murder." At this point in time, the accused officer hasn't even been indicted, let alone convicted. It maybe the author's opinion it was a murder, but he never makes that distinction.

    It's my opinion this is an op-Ed masquerading as investigative journalism. The bias of the author is very clear.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    6,064
    And I also noted he quoted Jamelle Bouie. He is one of the most biased "journalists" I've ever had the misfortune to read. He's not a journalist at all, just a guy with an opinion, and a platform to publish it, IMO. (And rather obnoxious, IMO.) I avoid Jamelle Bouie's articles, because I don't think his opinions are well thought out or supported, and he's kind of arrogant in his writing. I also think he hates white people. There. I said it, PC or not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    4,027
    Pretty sure everyone gets 'unless' - to argue people don't get that is old as well, imo.

    An assault on an officer has not occurred every time time a cop chases someone and shoots or beats the crap out of them. There are many new cases here where no such violence preceded a chase. Pretty sure that's the point of posting so many of late.

    It's Ok imo, to support LE can do whatever they want, whenever they want - and accept the costs that go with that. The same respect has to be given to those that don't agree. Yes?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post
    Pretty sure everyone gets 'unless' - to argue people don't get that is old as well, imo.

    An assault on an officer has not occurred every time time a cop chases someone and shoots or beats the crap out of them. There are many new cases here where no such violence preceded a chase. Pretty sure that's the point of posting so many of late.

    It's Ok imo, to support LE can do whatever they want, whenever they want - and accept the costs that go with that. The same respect has to be given to those that don't agree. Yes?
    NO. You misinterpreted the legal meaning of the Garner case, imo. You said the Supreme Court ruled that "fleeing is not a reason to shoot someone."
    And that is not what the ruling was. You left off a very important part of that sentence which qualifies the entire thing. Fleeing is not a reason to shoot UNLESS THAT FELLING PERSON POSES A THREAT.

    I think that in the vast majority of recent shooting cases, that is what has happened. The police had determined the fleeing suspect posed a threat.

    In a very small percentage that may not be true. Those are anomalies. In fact, your article agrees that:

    The report noted that those 4,800 arrest-related deaths came during a period in which the FBI estimated that there were nearly 98 million arrests made nationally. That's .005 percent of all arrests, some of which will be deemed justifiable homicides.


    So .005% of all arrests end in deaths. How many of them involve resisting arrest, assaults on the officer or posing a public safety risk? I am going to estimate about 80%. JMO
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    Has anyone here ever said that LE should be able to do whatever they want--whenever they want? If so, I must have missed that.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    4,027
    'Police determining' a situation to be a certain way has come under scrutiny. Charges reflect that - Walter Scott would be one of many.

    You are entitled to your opinion.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post
    'Police determining' a situation to be a certain way has come under scrutiny. Charges reflect that - Walter Scott would be one of many.

    You are entitled to your opinion.
    YES. It has come under scrutiny. But the perps/victims have come under scrutiny as well. The general public wants to balance the power but they do not want the fleeing felons to have all the power either.

    No one wants to see a situation where the public condones the resisting of every arrest or fleeing from car stops. And that is the danger here, imo. You cannot tie the officers hands and make them stand by helplessly and watch criminals run away, scot free. I do not think that the public wants that either. JMO
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  14. #14
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,867

    Can We Apply Common Sense to the Police Shootings Debate?

    One of the most frustrating aspects of the loud and vitriolic debates over police shootings is the extent to which they ignore common sense and human nature. In the quest to find grand narratives, we’re too quick to discount the simple realities of how human beings react during times of stress, and we minimize the reciprocal moral and legal responsibilities that citizens owe police and police owe citizens.

    First, when wary, angry, and/or frightened citizens interact with wary, angry, and/or frightened police — often at odd hours and in moments of maximum stress — there will inevitably be a certain number of both tragic mistakes and heinous crimes.

    [...]

    While he was running a background check, he started yelling at me for not pulling over on the side of the interstate but taking him to an “ambush.” He said he’d been shot at earlier this week and wasn’t going to let any punks put him down. As my future hopes and dreams were flashing before my eyes (I’d just been accepted to law school), he discovered I had no record or outstanding warrants, so he let me go with a traffic citation.

    [...]

    Our nation is imperfect, and police misconduct absolutely occurs. But the story of police shootings in America isn’t a story of mass-scale police slaughter; it’s one of infrequent, tragic incidents that arise as a natural byproduct of mass-scale, intensely stressful interactions between a very human police force and the very human citizens they’re sworn to protect.


    link



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Coos Bay, Oregon
    Posts
    3,540
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    One thing that I have noticed, that seems to be a pattern---the victims of the shootings were usually fleeing felons that were being aggressive and threatening before their demise.
    Last time I checked, driving too slowly, malfunctioning lights, and failure to signal were not felonies. I think you are assuming that they were felons.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2015, 02:20 PM
  2. Vaseline Vandal Can't Slip Past Police
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-20-2004, 08:32 AM