LAPD Officer Says Tragedies Could Be Prevented If Citizens Would Just Shut Up And Do What Cops Tell Them To
from the NOW,-DO-YOU-UNDERSTAND-WHY-I'M-BEATING-YOU? dept
In the continuing furor that is Ferguson, Missouri, someone is finally asking, "Won't anyone think of the poor police officers?" Naturally, the person raising this question is a police officer -- a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. And the question isn't so much being raised as it is being thrown in the reader's face.
Sunil Dutta wants to make a point about the difficulties faced by police officers every day. But he does so by boiling down his argument to little more than, "Shut your mouth or I'll beat your ass." Dutta begins by stating the obvious:
[C]ops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed.Sure. And most people aren't saying that cops are murderers. But they are calling them out for deploying excessive or deadly force far too often. That's homicide (in the rare cases when it results in charges). Murder is premeditated and while there are likely a very small number of cops who commit murder, there is a far larger percentage deploying excessive force -- force that sometimes results in death.
Once Dutta's erected his strawman, he casts about seeking to validate the sort of force escalation that seems far too common these days. It's not cops that are bad, it's just that people won't listen.
Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.Now that Dutta has made it clear that the public needs to exercise self-control because many police officers clearly can't, he moves on to explaining why it's so hard for officers to resist deploying excessive/deadly force.
Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.I'm still unclear as to when police officers were guaranteed a "safety zone" while on patrol and the rest of this plea for sympathy is similarly misguided. Scott Greenfield makes the obvious point that taking a job as cop is to willingly place yourself in situations where people become irate at your very existence.
Did someone tell you at the Academy that the public would be showering you with kisses and adoration? Perhaps they suggested you would carry all that cool hardware on your service belt because people would get in your personal space to request your autograph, you rock star you. Oh wait. You were a cop. Your job was to deal with people who were often unpleased to see you. Are you complaining? Do you want to give back your pension?After illustrating how he resolved a potentially dangerous situation without force, Dutta moves on to explain why nearly any use of force is justified. There's only one way to (almost) guarantee that a police officer like Dutta won't move past an "ostentatious display of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt" and into full deployment of the mini-arsenal. And that's to never do anything that might signal your respect for the police officer "interacting" with you is anything less than 100%.
[I]f you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?Dutta says "cooperate," no matter what. No matter if you're just being hassled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or if you're the wrong color or just walking insouciantly, when a cop orders you to do something, do it. But this isn't "cooperation." That word suggests people working together. What Dutta demands is something else entirely. Scott Greenfield breaks it down:
When you use the word “cooperate,” you do so applying the cop definition. We, non-cops, are to cooperate with you, cop. We, as you’ve already told us, are to do as you say. Your idea of cooperation has nothing whatsoever to do with cooperation. It’s just a much better word than “comply or I will inflict pain, perhaps even death…"The problem is that life isn't nearly as clear cut as Dutta portrays it. There are nuances at play at any given time, but Dutta only sees it as black and white. Submit or pay the price. That's how Dutta defines "cooperation."
The disconnect seems to be that the public just won’t do whatever a cop says. Sometimes they won’t do it fast enough. Sometimes, they don’t do it right enough. Sometimes, they won’t do it at all. Your solution is just do it or you’ve brought the wrath of the police down on your own head.Among the many problems with Dutta's column is this: he expects the public to have respect for law enforcement while officers show an active disrespect for the laws governing their behavior. He throws this sentence into the mix without a hint of self-awareness.
Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.This legal prohibition doesn't seem to be prohibiting the use of excessive force. And the words "stop resisting" are muttered over and over again as personal permission slips to deliver more blows, whether or not the suspect is actually resisting. Cops are given desk duty or paid suspensions for violating this law while those on the receiving end spend time in the hospital… or the morgue.
Dutta also delivers this remarkable paragraph with a straight face.
But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.Take your beating and sue later! Enjoy having your future destroyed by bullshit charges! Our justice system presumes you're innocent, except for all the evidence otherwise! Let the system runs its course, with citizens molested and cops unmolested! Use your time and money to sue us and watch the courts grant us immunity! Use YOUR OWN MONEY (taxes) to pay for our misdeeds in the odd event that a settlement is agreed to!
If this is the argument for police actions in Ferguson, it's an insanely shitty one. If this is what passes for justification, then it's clear there's no excuse for excessive force. No one truly believes all cops are murderers, but there's enough harboring the potential to do serious harm that citizens are justifiably wary that any encounter with police officers could go horribly wrong -- especially if they attempt to stand up for the rights these officers deny them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: authority, civil liberties, civil rights, ferguson, free speech, lapd, missouri, obedience, police, sunil dutta
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Unsuitable by nature
Cops are like priests - the second they violate the trust that anyone has for them, they should be stripped of their position and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and anyone who covers up or fails to prosecute their illegal activities should be prosecuted as an accomplice. With greater public trust should come greater consequences for violating that trust, not less.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem.
Now imagine if someone tried to make use of their rights to remain silent and not give any passwords to their mobile phones without a warrant from a judge... Bad, bad citizen, the cops know better! Warrants are a hassle. Now give me that password and answer my questions or else! *points at baton*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the answer is "no" then the next question is "What assistance am I legally required to give you, officer?"
The other must is a phone app that streams recordings to a remote server in real-time.
http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Know-Your-Rights-Booklet1.pdf
http://w ww.policecrimes.com/police.html
http://svan.ca/police-rights/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"What assistance am I legally required to give you, officer?"
That's a bad question to ask a police officer. The officer can very well lie or be ignorant. Better to already know what you are legally obligated to do and what your rights are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the answer is "no" then the next question is "What assistance am I legally required to give you, officer?"
Good first question, bad second question. If you ask that, the answer is guaranteed to be "You are legally required to do everything I say!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is untrue.
Which is untrue, or at least should be untrue. I guess arguably disobeying a police officer, even an unlawful order, could be regarded as resisting arrest. But that can put a civilian into a bit of a dilemma.
I on the other hand, would be tempted to force them to say as much, just get the implication out there that the officer wittingly knows that he's in the position to control, escalate and abuse the encounter, whether or not he would ever be held accountable for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grow up or go home
Cops, by the very nature of their job, are going to see people at their worst. They are going to encounter people who've just had something terrible or tragic happen, people who are under intense stress and are looking to lash out, to somehow deal with the situation, to get some measure of 'control' back into their lives.
This may take the form of 'curses', it may take the form of 'screaming tantrums', or something similarly drastic or 'confrontational'.
Cops also, by the nature of their job and the power and authority vested in that position are quite often seen as a threat. They are people who can, at a whim, make your life miserable, carry, and are allowed to use, such 'delightful' items as batons, tazers, pepper spray, and pistols. People who have few actual limits as to what they can do to a member of the public, but who are protected, extremely so, by the system and their fellow officers from the public.
It should go without saying that people that are seen as a threat, generally don't get the warmest welcome.
Given the above, the various reasons people aren't going to be on their best around cops, and the fact that none of this should be a surprise to anyone who is, or is looking to become, a cop, if he, or any other officer can't maintain a professional demeanor around this sort of response from the public, if they can't remain civil and polite even if the other person isn't, I've a simple suggestion: Get another job. Because if they can't handle that sort of stuff, then they don't deserve the position and power they have as police.
Whining about how 'hard' the job is is just that, whining. They knew how hard the job was before going in(or they should have anyway), and yet they took it anyway, if they can't handle it, get out, and let someone more qualified take their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ L.A.P.D. Officer - STFU
No police officer has any authority when they are bullying or harassing people for the fun of it.
No police officer has any legal standing when they ignore people's Constitutional rights.
No police officer is above the law.
So Mr. High and Mighty L.A.P.D. Officer, what I say to you is - shut the fuck up you pathetic little whiner.
Do you know why you get cursed at? Yelled at? Called vile names? It's because your brethren, predecessors and hell, possibly even you do all of the above, which makes the people that you work for angry.
Guess what happens you piss off your bosses. You get fired, you get demoted, you get thrown out. Since you cops think that just because you wear a badge you have the right to do anything you want, say anything you want, harass anyone you want, you're going to get treated like the scum you are.
Act professional. Act within the letter as well as intent of the law. Arrest your fellow officers that do not comply with this. Prevent abuse and harassment by your fellow officers. Take the time to talk to those people who you normally just stare down at from your high horse. Get to know them, they're usually pretty good people who are scared of what you're going to do to them today. People get angry and do stupid shit when scared, so stop scaring them, stop angering them, stop the abuses of the police state.
We the people are the law, you the police officers are the ones who were hired, by us, to enforce it. If you cannot or will not do the job correctly, we the people will take action and remove you from the job in whatever way necessary. Does that sound like a threat? It's not - it's just common sense. Something that is sorely lacking in today's police departments and governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ L.A.P.D. Officer - STFU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ L.A.P.D. Officer - STFU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect My Authoritah!
Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect My Authoritah!
Prostitution is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this what they tell underage teenage girls in the backseat of the police cruiser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sunil Dutta: I'm a cop - just cooperate, please
-
The propaganda machine is in full effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsuitable by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unsuitable by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unsuitable by nature
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was brought up with the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shut up and comply!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DHS has been militarizing local police forces because... terrorists.
NSA has been collecting all electronic communications because... terrorists.
-
A lot of bad legislation has been written since 911 because... terrorists.
-
So yeah, it has everything to do with 911.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you anywhere near Ferguson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAPD Disclaimer
Regardless, I was quite disgusted upon reading this article. He paid some lip service to the ACLU and its "types", yet promptly undermined said lip service with the rest of his article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LAPD Disclaimer
that is the takeaway...
of course, if he had just a teeny-tiny bit of self-awareness, he might wonder if HE -as a brown-skinned man- would be jacked up by all his 'buddies' (read: goons for the state) if he got crosswise with them... no doubt, he would defend their right to kick the shit out of him, since he was -you know- a 'threatening' brown-ish color...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should be immediately fired. He is clearly not interested in "protecting" or "serving". Time for another line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe he's already retired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truthful but wrongful...
Of course the kids in Ferguson don't have the luxury of a lawyer and likely feel they have nothing to lose anyways.
The powers that be tend to gravely underestimate the dangers of allowing such desperation to fester.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truthful but wrongful...
The problem needs to be fixed BEFORE there is a stop. If our police departments are in a state in which compliance with ANY order from a police officer is required to avoid injury, we need to get our police departments fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truthful but wrongful...
Worse still, the fact that such sociopaths and sadists know that they can get away with pretty much anything at all, up to and including murder, so if they really feel like getting a workout, there's really not much a non-cop can do to stop them. Sit back and take it, and hope you don't get hospitalized/killed, or defend yourself, and definitely get hospitalized/killed.
And yeah, for those cops who are banking on using fear, or the threat of violence to keep people in line, that only works so far. If maintained for too long, or if it reaches past a certain level, simple animal survival instinct pretty much demands that you remove the source of the fear/threat, and when that happens, it's not going to be pretty for those little tyrants/thugs, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truthful but wrongful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truthful but wrongful...
Madness!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why were the Germans the bad guys in WW2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we shouldn't feel unsafe when approached by an armed person?
So having someone with a gun detain me isn't an encroachment on my safety zone? What about when that armed person tells me to delete photos/videos legally taken from a public place of a public place/event? Should I comply to an unlawful order?
and outright challenges to my authority
Here is the real problem, the challenge to his authority. Cops these days see everyone as the enemy and we must submit to their authority even when they exceed their lawful authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ladies: do what the rapist tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.
Children: do what the molester tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.
Journalists: do what the government tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.
Jews: do what the Nazi tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.
...I'm not sure his advice is very good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess if you want to be shot, tased, sprayed, or beaten (I don't think he mentioned choking, that's a good one too), his answer would be yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should always, always, always refuse to consent to any search of anything you own or possess whatsoever. No matter if you "have something to hide" or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He isn't the only one saying this
While I am not condoning anything that happened in Missouri, the facts aren't all in yet, there seems to be a double standard on this site.
On the one hand, your express the belief that all users of a service like torrents should not be judged by the few who abuse it, but you then flip around and blame all police for the actions of a very small minority of bad actors.
There have been multiple reports of as many as 12 witnesses describing the events in Ferguson almost exactly as reported by the officer, yet none have been referenced on this site. What about the autopsies, none of which were handled by local authorities, that also back the officer's account, and not the witness (friend) of the victim.
So which is it? Are all guilty because of the few bad actors, or should we hold only those who acted badly accountable for their actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
What IS clear at this point is that the police in Ferguson have mishandled EVERYTHING since then. They responded to protesters with riot gear and armored vehicles, they responded to members of the press with tear gas and handcuffs, and they have responded to the public response to all of this with escalation.
Then you add in jack-wagon's like the one this article is referring to clearly claiming that the public needs to comply with any order, legal or not, from a police officer to avoid injury and you have a very big problem.
Most of the articles condemning police activity have been about specific incidents and the HUGE problem of police unions and departments covering them up or letting the officers off with little or no punishment. Yes, these problems may be getting caused by a few bad actors, but the bad actors have managed to get their unions to expand the problem exponentially. The problems are becoming pervasive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
I know it isn't all the time and i know the police abused the situation, but there are "opportunists" on the side of the public putting everything the protesters are trying to achiev in jeopardy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
So... we're advocating extrajudicial executions as a solution now? I'm sure that will definitely solve the problems of abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
I thought the police was an organization that should replace and prevent lynch mob mentality instead of institutionalizing it?
The death penalty for looting and pillaging seems beyond excessive to me. What's wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
yeah, i thought so: when 'good' kops ignore or cover up for bad kops, that makes them ALL BAD KOPS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Please show me where this has transpired in the incident in Ferguson.
The cops may have mishandled things, but no one is covering anything up, unless you know something the rest of the population doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
The cops arresting the reporters in the mcdonalds.
The cop yelling "bring it on...etc.."
what will happen to these terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
What do you suggest?
It is easy to judge events when sitting comfortably in your desk chair feverishly typing rants about cops.
It's a little more chaotic surrounded by thousands of people, where some (a small number to be sure)are throwing rocks and bottles at you, looting stores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
I think everyone agrees with this. The problem is that there's nearly no chance that this will actually happen, if history is any guide. Misconduct is almost never punished in any real way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
yeah, that will surely end well.
The moment the militarization of police forces started was a declaration of war against the population. As long as the current people are in charge and those programs are not undone, there is no solution.
Right now the militarized police can only be considered an occupying force. They are not there to help anymore, they are there to shut you up and control what you are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truthful but wrongful...
You are making statements based on wishful assumptions and not even bothering to inform yourself in any way regarding about what actually goes on in that town.
You're like some kid that still believes in the tooth fairy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
So, they need to form a big-ass circle and cuff each other, have a Miranda party, call their little union reps, and harch their asses into jail.
There wasn't a claim of a cover up. There were two options in that statement, and they are general to all police activity, not specific to Ferguson. "May have mishandled"? Ya gotta be kidding me.
BTW, what do you call a cherry-picked straw man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
And the cover-up thing was stated many times in response to my post.
"yeah, i thought so: when 'good' kops ignore or cover up for bad kops, that makes them ALL BAD KOPS..."
"Most of the articles condemning police activity have been about specific incidents and the HUGE problem of police unions and departments covering them up or letting the officers off with little or no punishment."
These are the comments to which I was responding.
I see no straw man. Nor do I see a tin man or a lion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Right here. It took them almost a week to release the shooting officer's name?!?! When does that EVER happen in "civilian" cases?
... unless you know something the rest of the population doesn't
It would appear the rest of the population knows a whole lot of shit you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
I agree that they should have released his name sooner, and also released the video of the victim robbing the store 10 minutes before the cop arrived. but those are mistakes, not a cover-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
And you know this how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
That implies that I am speaking for myself and what I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Withholding information isn't a cover-up?! I don't think that word means what you think that word means....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
You can't be serious. Are you REALLY so dense that you think it's all "ok" now that they FINALLY released this info? (And there's a strong argument that could be made that it would have NEVER been released had it not been for all this brouhaha).
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the legal maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Interesting. I would hope you could realize that the origin of the term "cover-up" has to do with placing something under a "cover" so it can't be seen.
Maybe you could explain how withholding information from public sight doesn't pretty much exactly fit that description.
but withheld for the safety of the officer
Oh, boo hoo hoo. When has that EVER been a consideration for someone other than a cop?
considering the entire force has since had death threats made against them.
Yea, they have. Ever since they decided to close ranks and declare war on the public.
I don't see how you think that excuses what they did beforehand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
You know why the police in general get slammed for the actions of the minority of truly rotten cops among them? Because rather than hold their own accountable, rather than demand that fellow cops who abuse their authority be held to the same standards and laws that they insist the public follow... more often then not, they look the other way. They go silent. They don't hold their own accountable, instead protecting them from any possible repercussions for their actions.
When the 'good' cops cover for, and enable the actions of, the 'bad' cops, they cease to be 'good' cops, and are no better than the 'few bad actors' that they protect.
What about the autopsies, none of which were handled by local authorities, that also back the officer's account, and not the witness (friend) of the victim.
You mean the autopsy that found no trace of any gunpowder residue on the body, suggesting pretty strongly he was shot at a distance, despite the police claiming he was shot while trying to grab the gun?
That 'backing' evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
You guys keep referring to incidents that didn't happen in Ferguson. No one has covered anything up. Responded disproportionately, yes. Mishandled the release of the video and the officer's name, yes. Covered up a misdeed, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Now being that he's around 6' 3", I think the cop would have to be around 22' tall to get off a shot like that if Brown was standing up.
More likely, Brown was bending over from the previous hits, leaving the top of his head exposed to the shooter, facing him. And I'm pretty sure Brown is not Japanese, so he wasn't bowing to the shooter out of respect.
Also, since Brown wasn't shirtless, gun powder residue (GPR), wouldn't likely be found on him unless it was point blank.
There should be evidence on the shirt though if Brown was close enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
I am not claiming this as what transpired, just that it also fits with the evidence provided to the public so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
No double standard at all.
I don't blame all police for the actions of a minority of bad actors. I blame all police for their outright support & protection of the bad actors in their ranks.
Things like torrents are protocols, not people making some kind of judgement. Protocols are truly neutral -- they don't rally around defending and supporting people who use them for illegal purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Torrent users aren't armed and don't have any authority.
A legal torrent user is not in a position to police other torrent users - whilst cops can blow the whistle on the behaviour of other cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
As for the armed part. The gun is tool, not the threat. the person wielding the gun is the threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
What are you even talking about at this point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
-
6 holes were put into that young man.
"yet none have been referenced on this site"
You have not posted any links either. Citation needed.
-
http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2014/08/ferguson_autopsy_editorial_car.html
It's easy to understand why the Ferguson community has little faith they will get any justice from the police department who are supposed to be there to serve them. After being shot at least six times, Michael Brown's body was left lying in the street for at least 5 hours. It was people in the neighborhood who first covered his body with a sheet, not the police. After they finally get around to explaining why Michael Brown received the death penalty for jaywalking and resisting a police officer, I'd like to hear the FPD's explanation for leaving him in the street for hours to be covered by citizens.
-
FUCK THE POLICE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Wow... wake up. I definitely agree we dont know all the facts (what a thug pushing that merchant). However, this whole article about a cop expecting us to comply with his delusional narcissistic behavior while actually admitting his inability to handle his job should have keyed you in to the mind set of MANY (I'm guessing majority) of the officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
Are you completely fucking stupid? How can you even BEGIN to compare the two? The last time I checked a torrent user doesn't have the ability to imprison you, utterly ruin your life, beat the hell of you, or even kill you all with (near perfect) immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
You seem to want to make this all about Ferguson, but it's not. This is a much wider problem being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
The two are simply not comparable. We do not judge all cops by the actions of one. We know most cops are decent people trying to do a good job - but as soon as those good people start shielding their own bad actors, when they support a culture of protecting their own instead of the citizens, when citizens are viewed as the enemy instead of the ones they are serving, then those good people are part of the corrupt system.
I am an admitted copyright pirate, and frankly I probably take a bit too much pride in being one, but I must do what I think is right. However, should I get sued for infringement, I don't have a government bureaucracy behind me. At most I could hope for some donations to pay a tiny part of my legal fees. I can't expect that other pirates would hide what I did or obstruct justice on my behalf.
And you might want to examine the autopsy report a bit clearer - while a few parts of it did match with the officer's account, it also showed that the kid was no threat to the officer when that officer killed him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
No I don't.
I claim that if a torrent (or anything else) is used legally, then said use should not be met with batons and stun grenades. Your attempt at equivalence is lame. And where does this claim of "small minority" come from? Are there any facts to substantiate the percentage of known bad cops? This would be interesting reading, please share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
What about them? They say he shot the UNARMED TEEN a whopping SIX TIMES, all from behind. Conflicting reports say the two shots in the head were either at range, or execution style. But in either case, he was shot twice, in the head, from behind.
Unless this cop was not carrying a tazer, that alone is reason enough to brand the cop a killer. The victim here - the teen, not the cop - had no weapon. That alone is reason enough why the cop should NOT have used deadly force. Practically every cop in the country now carries a tazer. Unless this guy didn't have one, then the discussion of whether the cop was in the right should end right there, immediately, because he already used more force than he should have in order to stop and detain an UNARMED person.
That's it. I don't care of the kid just robbed a bank, a hospital, and every quick mart in the state. If he didn't have a weapon, the cop who tried to aprehend him shouldn't have used a weapon, period. This discussion of whether or not this was excessive must end right now. He used a GUN. It was automatically excessive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That only works if cops aren't cowards and losers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He isn't the only one saying this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like Adam Carolla was free to counter-sue the patent troll!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a novel approach..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya, well that sounds like every damn customer service job in the civilian world. The difference being we don't have the option to beat someone's face into a bloody mess and lock them in a cage for talking trash to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make no mistake: this guy is dangerous. He absolutely believes he is right and is willing to back that up with force. He actually sounds like some kind of militant zealot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stopped 37 times in the last year. No tickets, no arrests. Fuck the cops. We already know the vast majority aren't committing the atrocities, but they're complicit in it. They're not arresting the cops that are breaking the law. So I'll say it again: Fuck the cops. They're all fucking worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Holy crap! What are you doing, flipping the bird at every cop you see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...
I guess they don't have to look very far. I mean, it's (probably) not illegal to laugh at people in public, but it's unsurprising when they get upset about it.
Just make sure you don't do it while someone happens to be committing a crime nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Careful, you are widdling down your anonymity.
We now know that you are in your 20's, black, and live in New York City.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are too funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are too funny
I bet you let the whole police force in your town run a train on you so that they all feel more secure in their authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are too funny
It's a fantasy of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Police are legally permitted to use deadly force..."
Sheesh, and this guy would prob'ly wonder why I carry a large caliber semi-auto pistol! Hint - it's not all about radicalized Muslim terrorists and violent (non-cop) criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
avg iq of a cop
nuff said , me thinks we don't need to be told shit from stupid fucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess he never worked in an Emergency Room at a hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
half life 2 anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the crux of it. If the police want respect, they need to obey the law, and not individually but as a force. No cop should let another cop get away with doing anything illegal. One bad apple spoils everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, cops are killers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm. Most of that is completely legal. The speech, as long as it remains nonthreatening, non-libelous and within local statutes concerning obscenity and noise levels is protected.
Also, in my state, I do not have to necessarily obey a policeman's order, especially if I believe it to be an unlawful command. This was upheld in People v Moreno, 2012 WL 1381039.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is that there are too many cases where morons feel they have an entitlement to ignore what the officer is telling them and the majority of those who are sticking their noses up in the air to the cops are those looking to deliberately provoke the cops into doing something they can catch on video.
Just a look at the majority of videos posted on youtube and you can see how these morons with their cameras deliberately go out of their way to make a spectacle out of themselves in order to create the next viral video and ti's simply gotten out of control. Here in Michigan, I have never had a problem with filming a police officer and I surely don't mouth off to the officer or act rude to them.
Don't know about you guys, but a cop is a person just like any of us. You treat them with disrespect and, guess what? You're going to get disrespected right back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're not talking about "getting disrespected right back," we're talking about police abusing their powers. If the problem with the police was that they were just insulting in their demeanor, we'd be having a completely different discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely not. A police officer is supposed to be held to a higher standard. They are supposed to receive training for handling situations like this and how to de-escalate them without violence. They are supposed to put protecting citizens lives above their own.
A police officer should NEVER respond with physical violence to anything said to them that is not directly threatening. They should uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens. You should be able to walk up to any police officer and scream obscenities at them and as long as it is not interfering with their job, they should do nothing to stop you - free speech makes it your right to scream anything you want at them.
If you hold them to citizen standards and call them "just human", citizens should be held to the same standards and it should be ok if they detain police officers at gunpoint and them release them later, it should be ok for them to carry automatic weapons, it should be ok for any citizen to beat a police officer with a night stick for not complying with an order. Clearly that is ridiculous. Police officers are supposed to be trained to handle situations better than citizens - if not, they should not be carrying deadly weapons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the attitude of the bully, bigot and other people who demand that others respect and agree with everything that they say and do, and further who treat every slight affront as a reason to attack the other person, and is not the attitude of anyone who deserves respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No they aren't. Cops are subhuman pieces of garbage. Get the officer's dick out of your mouth before posting next time. They want respect? Act like an officer of the law and hold their 'brothers' to the same standard. Then people will respect them.
The biggest issue is that there are enough shady cops doing shady things and being protected by the blue code of silence. Arrest the shitty officers, bring them to trial, show that you're on the side of the people you're protecting. Then you're an officer of the law. Otherwise you're a gang member with a badge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I gonna go with, the cops get paid to respect, and if they do, they will earn it. The citizens are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, within the law, and do not deserve disrespect for it.
That means the cops have to respect the citizens, doing whatever the hell they want. When they don't, then they dis-earn any respect they might have gained, and will have to work twice as hard to regain it. And the onus is on them, not us. And that onus has now spread to all of them (maybe because of a few but that is beside the point) and the work they all will need to do to re-earn respect starts with stopping their disrespect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like "any of us" empowered to enforce the law, with lethal force? A COP is not a person, he is a representative of state authority, invested with the responsibility to enforce the law. He is never "just a person" not even when out of uniform shopping for tomatoes. You ignore this at your own peril.
"You treat them with disrespect and, guess what? You're going to get disrespected right back."
Wrong. You get arrested or lose your life. This has been shown to be true MANY MANY times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LoL, this alone gives a good hint on how clueless you are little Mr Dictator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a shock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A majority huh. Lets see your statistical analysis, or was that just conjecture? Which videos? Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
Lets recall a few of the more famous videos:
Wasn't the Rodney King videographer hiding in a house pointing the camera through a glass window hoping to not be seen? Sounds like they were going out of their way to make a spectacle, oh yeah.
What about the UC Davis pepper-spray incident - that person was definitely going out of their way to make a spectacle - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how does an unconscious person obey and prevent getting shot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj46x6P5gLs
How does a man crying out for his father to help prevent him from being beat to death? http://www.salon.com/2014/01/14/cops_who_beat_homeless_man_to_death_walk_free/[1]
When you're unconscious after being ejected from a vehicle how do you comply to prevent a beating? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj46x6P5gLs
How do you stop a cop from executing you for illegal camping by shooting you in the back? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U
This is by no where near all that goes on each week across the US. Why do you think citizens are up in arms over the treatment they are receiving from cops who get nothing more than a few days off for such actions?
How would Mr. Sunil Dutta feel if the citizens of the US just got fed up with it and started protesting or decided it was fair game to shoot every cop they saw for self protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What kind of person does one need to be to do this kind of stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is not good cops who do things by the book. The problem is when they don't. So all the "this is what you should do" is irrelevant.
There are three situations that most likely cause these problems -
Crazy public - there's always going to be someone high on whatever, or off their meds. Some just need force to deal with, some just need to be calmed down. A good cop needs to recognize and adapt to these and talk someone down, rather than yelling "Put the [knife, chair, bowling ball] down now and get on the ground or I shoot!" How well they talk their way through these turns a potential tragedy into an after work bar story. Police in England, for example, typically do NOT carry guns - so they have to rely on their uniform to carry the authority
High Energy Situation - the adrenalin rush situation, chasing a suspect after shots are fired, this sort of thing; the cop is on a hair-trigger and may for example, make a stupid mistake or "jump the gun" (Literally) making mistakes like thinking a cellphone is a gun. Perhaps to some extent good training and psychological filtering can prevent these problems.
Bad (Dickhead) Cop - This is the biggest problem. It sometimes may not be a problem cop, so much as a training and discipline issue in some regard. Some cops simply lose their cool and act like arrogant pricks, knowing they have the force on their side. Others become cops because they like the idea of being the big swinging dick and ordering people around. the former can be dealt with by proper training and the assurance that misbehaviour will not be swept under the rug. The latter should have been caught at application time, but otherwise the best fix is "fire him!". This type will use their position to do whatever the hell they want, and will ignore procedure or rules secure in the knowledge that they can get away with it.
With the first problem - the guy is high or crazy, he's not going to listen to reason, you have to physically take him down. However, unless he's wielding a lethal weapon, firepower should not be in the mix - back off and call for backup if he's too big or too crazy. For type two - slow down and avoid putting yourself in a situation where lethal force is necessary. get a good look at him, the guy will still be in his neighbourhood in an hour or a day.
Incidents of the third type - well, the police there are deliberately driving a confrontation. The LAPD guy is right in one way, because arguing with a guy who has lethal power and perversion of the law on his side cannot end well for the other side; the only hope is that people are standing around with cellphones and using for example, a forbidden choke-hold, will eventually we hope catch up with the officer.
Whether the guy in Ferguson was a combination of arrogant prick and/or adrenalin panic, time will tell.
Unfortunately, like the Catholic Church or the Boy Scouts or the Military with sexual assaults, the tendency is to sweep it under the rug until things blow up so badly that the authorities realize, too late, they should have dealt with it properly in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
But with police, social evolution has gone backward: violent behavior that was previously both uncommon and/or unacceptable has become the new norm of American-style law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
Violent crime has been declining for over a decade, or maybe you haven't noticed because it not considered "Breaking News". So your premise is incorrect.
It is worth noting that in the face of declining crime, our police are acting like it has skyrocketed. Perhaps they are as out of touch as yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
- I did not claim that zip did.
"he didn't mention crime rates."
- my bad, zip was referring to the increase in police brutality, not violent crime elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
It's only since the panzy assed fucktards have taken charge to claim that it's assault has our society spiraled into decline.
A little more tough love and all the kids would be better off.
Now if someone does actually "Beat" a child, ie - hits them (spanking is not hitting) with a closed fist, or other, then sure, let's put a stop to that.
But to say that all corporal punishment is out will only harm society as a whole.
Sometimes the only thing to get the attention of a child is to spank them. Words do nothing, time-outs do nothing. But the memory of when their bottom hurt - well, that's something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
The science shows otherwise:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-physical-punishment-idUSBREA0G16C20140117
http ://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/canada-spanking-idUSL2E8D1F1C20120207
Crime has actually been decreasing for decades:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1ta bledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1 993-2012.xls
If you're referring to some sort of other societal decline, please offer some citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
Secondly, corporal punishment is the appropriate physical punishment applied not all out beatings. The article references violent beatings which most of us who have experienced appropriate corporal punishment recognise is both ineffectual and dangerous to both participants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
pssst! He's talking about you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
A cyclic action that doesn't thread the fine line of self-control and self-discipline. If corporal punishment is not tempered with the goal of self-discipline and self-control (which should have been obvious but apparently not) for the recipient then it is useless. It simply becomes punishment for punishments sake, as is the general face of our current law and law enforcement regime.
After reading all the comments related to this article, it is obvious that some of the leading attributes for being a copper are that one is self-disciplined and self-controlled. The last factor is that one has developed wisdom (which appears to be even rarer these days when one looks at those who should be using it - law enforcement, military, judges, political leaders, etc).
Finally, appropriate corporal punishment is only a part of the tools needed to bring about a new generation of self-disciplined and self-controlled people. A patient word, a restriction on activities or a removal of privileges are also parts of the toolbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: societal norms: cops vs. school teachers
Absolutely right. Technically, it's battery (whether or not it's legally allowed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if debates worked that way: Senator, you have 30 seconds to taze for your rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"i will kill you"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbR824FKpU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"[I]f you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
These two statements are mind boggling to me. Looking at these again, you are subjecting yourself to the potential of being "shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground" anytime you are TALKING or WALKING in a way a cop doesn't like.
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this as reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That alone shows a disconnect and failure to understand that is astounding and frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cops said that the person they were called about was a white male wearing a black shirt. John Winkler was also wearing a black shirt so obviously he was their man so they shot him.
So apparently if you are the same race as the criminal they are called for and just happen to be wearing the same color shirt you may get shot too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/10/local/la-me-ln-sheriff-admits-mistakenly-killing-tv-pro ducer-in-west-hollywood-20140410
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He forgot a rule
"When a cop must shoot a suspect, other citizens should get out of the way. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is not the cops but the bystanders hitting the deck, who can prevent a cop's stray bullets from turning into tragedies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of cops and priests...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's something I'd expect a bank robber to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police/public interaction
our domestic police should not have full military body armor and automatic weapons when dealing with the public. the police all too often escalate the potential for violence too quickly and should be better trained in how to interact of everyone they contact and with backup contain a suspect as well as possible until a resolution can be reached without gunfire. finally, part of police training should emphasize that they are obliged to a higher standard of tolerating erratic behavior and verbal abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police/public interaction
I would have thought this was obvious. The evidence is that they can't really even be trusted with Tasers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This leads to the conclusion, if you can harm a cop, it must be legal or else you could not have done it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, REALLY?
Tell that to this cop, who aimed a loaded gun -- with his finger on the trigger -- at protestors in Ferguson last night and shouted "I will fucking kill you!"
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/ferguson-cop-i-will-kill-you_n_5695748.html
Question 1: why hasn't this cop been charged with multiple felonies?
Question 2: why hasn't this cop been publicly fired?
Question 3: what would have happened to a protestor if they had tried this with a cop?
Question 4: does anyone think for a moment that this is the only such incident or that these things only happen in Ferguson or that these things have only happened in the last 10 days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police are more dangerous than terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Militarization
http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-pros-and-cons-of-militarizing-the-police,36717/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Militarization
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just noticed this tidbit
There's such a thing as "professor of homeland security"?! Good god. And as if that weren't bad enough, rank, unapologetic authoritarians such as Mr. Dutta are filling those positions? Even worse, he's a former LAPD officer. The LAPD is more famous for their abusiveness than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the cause, not the symptom
People are disrespectful of the police? How do we solve it?
The easy way: write opinion pieces telling them to stop being disrespectful. Well, wasn't that easy? Wait, it didn't work?!
The hard way: figure out why police have lost the public's respect over the years and put new systems in place to change it. But like I said, this could be too hard for many departments with ingrained systems of doing things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix the cause, not the symptom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I'm not mistaken, police aim for center mass - I guess you could call it shooting to stop. Torso shots are not necessarily quickly fatal, but they're also not intended specifically to be non-fatal. I think the shots to the arm were the officer missing the torso, not intentionally trying to inflict minimal injury and then switching targets for a kill shot.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obey us or die
As witness Amadou Diallo, who was unarmed and doing nothing more than standing outside his house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting
This country took the wrong turn when the Congress approved the bill to allow the military to sell off old weapons, etc to the police and sheriff's departments. Should never have been allowed.
Because since that time, the number of violent incidents involving cops and groups of people have risen dramatically.
As latest as the Boston Massacre, which had 9,000 armed cops roaming the streets. Thankfully nobody was killed besides the suspect's brother..but that was a miracle.
When you give them the weapons to turn entire cities into war zones, don't be surprised when people get a bit upset when they're instructed to stay silent or die.
Then it becomes a war that pits the very people we trust to protect us into an army against us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use of non-lethal force to bring down wild anaimals
Yet the various police and law enforcement agencies appear to be incapable of doing the same with people. Their lethal means include firearms, chemical weapons, beatings, tasers, etc.
What can we learn from this? Hmm?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use of non-lethal force to bring down wild anaimals
Yet the various police and law enforcement agencies appear to be incapable of doing the same with people. Their lethal means include firearms, chemical weapons, beatings, tasers, etc.
What can we learn from this? Hmm?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unable to view or comment properly
Can any of the editors explain why or is it a problem at your end related to being accessed through TOR?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He just got confused. He meant "submit," not "cooperate." Once you use the right word, it all makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When should you shoot a cop?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw
Never ever talk to a cop, never give them permission to do anything what so ever. They will always abuse the trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nope
I think a typical semiautomatic such as a Glock holds something like 15 rounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as much protection as you think.
In the meantime as the revelations about Ferguson has brought to light, common precincts actually don't bother with jerk offs this guy has to protect us from preferring instead to focus all their energy on preying on the population themselves.
The police often don't even do the job for which they were originally hired, preferring to engage in street-crime, themselves. You're a protection racket endorsed by the state. And not a very good one, since you don't actually protect from anyone but yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police
Aren't professional Police Officers here to deal with the people that Do NOT comply.....if everyone complied we would have no need for Police officers ,we could just have Security Officers if everyone did the right thing all the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“