Nothing To Hide (And Nowhere To Hide It) But Everything To Fear: The Police Vs. The Unarmed And Naked
from the but-all-I-had-to-defend-myself-with-was-my-gun,-body-armor,-training... dept
"Naked" is synonymous with "vulnerable." And yet, plenty of naked people continue to be shot and killed by police officers, despite having nowhere to hide weapons and nothing standing between them and the bullets headed their way.
Of course, naked people are far more prone to find themselves in confrontations with police. In almost every case, substance use/abuse or mental illness will be the reason for the person's nudity. Despite being handicapped by both limited mental faculties and lack of any protection, naked people are often considered inherently "threatening," and thus, worthy recipients of any level of force that allows responding officers to feel "safe" again.
17-year-old David Joseph was shot to death by Austin police officer Geoffrey Freeman, who was responding to reports of a naked man acting erratically. Freeman said he feared for his life, even though Joseph had no clothing and no weapons.
Of course, the first response from the police union was to assume Joseph was under the influence of a "drug like PCP." PCP is the go-to guess for officers trying to explain how they felt overwhelmed by a person smaller than them... or carrying no weapons... or wearing no clothes. It supposedly gives even unarmed, naked people superhuman strength and increased resistance to less-lethal force. How many people officers feel are using PCP is miles away from how many people are actually using PCP.
Here's a rather boring graph showing the "rise" in PCP use over the years. (Click here to see the statistics behind the chart.)
The use of PCP is so limited, the DOJ just lumps it in with a bunch of other substances under the heading of "other or non-drug."
And yet, the first assumption is that a naked teen an officer killed was on PCP. The autopsy did find substances in Joseph's body, but not anything that would make him aggressive or dangerous.
[A]n autopsy released last week showed he had marijuana and Xanax in his system when he was killed.This case echoes one from nearly two years ago in Colorado. Again, a naked, unarmed teen was fatally shot by a police officer -- but that time the officer had to enter someone's house to do it.
Alvar called Fountain police on the afternoon of Sept. 22, 2014, to report someone trying to steal a motorcycle from her garage. Two other officers were dispatched, but upon hearing the address, Officer Kay said, "That's Patrick," and volunteered to take the call, the mother says in the March 4 federal complaint.Once again, a naked person was described as a threat. Despite the fact Patrick Alvar wasn't carrying a weapon, Officer Kay firmly believed the motion he saw Patrick make was a move for a hidden weapon. From Kay's report on the shooting:
When Kay arrived, Alvar says, she told him her son was upstairs, preparing to take a shower. Kay followed her upstairs, looked into the bathroom when she opened the door, and saw her son naked, preparing to get into the shower, the mother says in the complaint.
She says Kay grabbed the bathroom door handle and told Patrick to put on his underwear. Patrick and Kay pushed and pulled on the door, and when Patrick managed to close it, "Officer Kay drew his weapon and fired one shot through the closed bathroom door. After firing the shot, Officer Kay opened the bathroom door to find Patrick lying naked on the ground with his head against the left corner by the bathtub. Blood was coming out of his head," according to the complaint.
"Ms. Alvar opened the door and Officer Kay saw Patrick O'Grady standing in the bathroom. Officer Kay then saw Patrick O'Grady turn and grab a gun from the bathroom counter and point it at the officer. At that time, Officer Kay drew his gun and fired one shot in the direction of Patrick O'Grady, who was struck by the bullet."The bathroom was searched by three officers without finding a weapon. The fourth search somehow turned up one. The gun "found" in the bathroom apparently belonged to Deputy Donald Beasley of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is the "outside agency" that investigated the shooting. Video footage could have cleared this all up, but Officer Kay's body camera was never activated.
Officer Robert Olsen of Georgia shot naked, unarmed Anthony Hill last year, responding to call about a man acting "deranged" and "crawling on the floor." According to Olsen, Hill charged at him after being ordered to stop. Olsen has been indicted for multiple charges, including two counts of felony murder.
In the same month Officer Olsen killed Anthony Hill (March 2015), Kansas police shot a naked woman in her own bed. The twist: she had a gun. The other twist? She was ordered by officers to show it to them.
Gardner police got a 911 call on March 26, 2015 that Deanne Choate, 54, had been drinking alcohol, was suicidal and had a gun. When police arrived they immediately handcuffed and arrested Choate's boyfriend and removed him from the home, then found Deanne Choate sleeping naked in her bed, her daughter says in the Feb. 25 complaint.July 2014: Haywood (CA) police officers shoot a naked, unarmed man to death, apparently for refusing to come out of a "barricaded" room (furniture was pushed up against the door). Not that the "barricade" was that much of an impediment. It didn't prevent two officers from entering the room and shooting Jeffrey McKinney.
After waking her up, officers questioned her for eight minutes, repeatedly asking, "Where is the gun?"
"Deanne was obviously not carrying or concealing on her person any type of weapon," her daughter says.
"During this time, officers came and went from the room. They looked under the sheets of the bed." They stayed in the room "with the naked, 115-pound woman" and finally gave her a sweatshirt to wear, according to the complaint.
After repeatedly demanding, "Where is the gun?" and "We know you have a gun," Deanne finally "complied with officers' request and produced a handgun, stating, 'Oh, here it is.'"
Then they shot her to death.
October 2012: A University of South Alabama campus police officer shoots and kills a naked, unarmed student -- one who had banged on the window of the campus police station and made "threatening" moves toward the officer. The officer described him as "muscular." The student's parents agree with the "muscular" part (he was a wrestler) but that he only stood 5'7" and weighed 135 pounds.
And on and on. It certainly doesn't make up a sizable percentage of police shootings but there have been enough of them that it's notable. Handling a person under the influence/suffering from mental illness is naturally going to be more unpredictable than confronting your normal, everyday perp. But the escalation from "this is going to be weird" to "this is going to require bullets" seems to skip a lot of steps in far too many instances.
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: austin, david joseph, geoffrey freeman, law enforcement, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
College life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: College life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news...
/nr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In other news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training
The longer they take before shooting people, the higher the probability that they'll get wounded first, with bullets or words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Training
It is more of a problem with mentality. Shoot first, ask questions later is a good way for the gunner to stay safe and the people around, getting killed.
The way NRA argues is not exactly helping with that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Training
You mean how they recommend not shooting or even pointing your gun at someone or even touching your gun unless your life is actively being threatened? You mean how they train gun owners how to de-escalate before resorting to violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Firearms are designed to be safe for their wielder and innocents, and dangerous to the people against whom the wielder must use them. A manufacturer that intentionally designed a firearm that was needlessly dangerous to its wielder or innocents would lose sales to one who designed a quality weapon. Note the needlessly qualifier carefully. A dangerous weapon that reliably stops an attack may be more highly prized than a very safe weapon that does not reliably stop an attack, particularly if competent use by the wielder can minimize the danger to non-targets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
by "stops an attack", you mean successfully attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Importantly, the lawful permission for deadly force ends when the unlawful act ceases. For example, if an attempted murderer surrenders and is reasonably not a threat, then the citizen is no longer permitted to use deadly force, even if deadly force would have been authorized if the attempted murderer had not surrendered. Therefore, a gun can stop an attack without killing the attacker, and sometimes without even wounding the attacker, if the presence of the gun and the implicit or explicit threat to use it can successfully prevent further unlawful action. The goal is to stop the attack, not to exact private retribution for attacks already concluded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
If you want to be a coward and not have a gun and and a desire to protect the nation from all enemies foreign or domestic then fine, but do not get in the way of the others that will!
If you have the nerve to attack any of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, then you have NO RIGHT to receive protection on any of your OTHER rights... like speech, voting, or not being made into a slave!
The founders made it very clear what the 2nd was meant for and they also said that those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
If you're not responsible to have firearm access, fine (please!), don't - but keep that to yourself.
Those of us who are responsible don't like having our freedoms taken because you can't imagine anything but the lowest common denominator. Projection much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Why is this automatically a good thing?
I'm not actually arguing one way or the other here, just pointing out that "we must be able to do something because someone once said we could" is only one step away from "he started it". If there are perfectly valid arguments for gun ownership, then that's fine - make those arguments and be happy. But waving a 225 year old amendment that was a close contemporary to the Three-Fifths Compromise entirely ignores the certainty that any constitution best serves it's people as a living document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three-Fifths Compromise (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training)
Put simply, do you think the slave-owning states should have had more power or less?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three-Fifths Compromise (was Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
There is a reason why Americans should universally support their 2nd amendment. Keeps them free from the worst excesses of a corrupt and criminal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
There was the guy who immolated himself in protest. Despite an explanation that seemed considered and deliberate, he was still regarded as a wacko.
The People of the United States are, despite their many troubles and conflicts, a generally peaceful sort. We'd really rather not shoot back at law-enforcement. I think we're trying to rule out all non-violent resources (including merely suffering said excesses) before turning to violent solutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supporting the Second Amendment
The US right to bear arms is certainly worthy of challenge, even partially. Do we allow private parties to own nuclear weapons or bio agents? Can we enforce prohibitions regarding printed guns? Should the individual have the same access as does law enforcement and the military? Should a person be allowed to handle a loaded firearm while intoxicated? There is a lot of gray area and a lot of controversy as to what the right and proper answers are, what should be enforced and what can be enforced.
As a note, what the constitution says is not always reflected in our lawbooks. The process by which laws are challenged against the constitution requires that someone is taken to court for breaking the law, and the case be appealed to a high enough court to hear a constitutional challenge. As justices can be rather opinionated, whether or not restrictions on gun access are upheld or successfully appealed are about as varied from jurist to jurist as IP law opinions. The weaknesses of this process are plentiful, acknowledged and grumbled over, which is why the Mississippi Religious Freedom law, which allows discrimination against LGBT citizens in the alleged name of religious expression) hasn't yet been stricken down as a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Among the many reasons the Second Amendment continues to be valid there are three that come to (my) mind, put in brief
~ Personal Defense as a frontier nation, there are plenty of hazards about (mostly dangerous wildlife and vermin, though bandits and outlaws sometimes figure in). And the individual has a right to protect self, family, property and territory from such hazards.
~ Keeping the government nervous The origin of the US is rife with state agencies having too little respect for the common individual from governing bodies. And our constitutional framers recognized that this is a ongoing problem, that rights, liberties and benefits will be encroached upon and denied by the government as they can get away with it, and as we're seeing today with our extensive police brutality problem.
~ Liberty. Americans are allowed to own and use what they want unless there are clear grounds to deny it to them. But we're really bad at determining what is dangerous to the people and should be restricted. Worse yet, as Prohibition and the War on Drugs has shown, we suck even worse at figuring out how to control substances without heinous amounts of casualties. But considering how the public has freaked out over the telephone, radio, television, pornography, comic books, Elvis, Rock-&-Roll, Led Zeppelin, Dungeons & Dragons, marijuana, novels featuring adult situations, video games from Pacman to Call of Duty the internet, cell phones, sexting, and so on, both the government and the public have both demonstrated they have no qualifications to determine what is too dangerous for private ownership or not.
These are not to say that legalized guns are the best solution. Certainly our police seem eager to gun people down, armed or otherwise. But in challenging the second amendment or criminalizing weapons, we have to acknowledge these issues and preferably provide more effective alternatives to address them. The people of the US are skeptical things will get better with a disarmed public so we have to clarify the purpose that doing so serves, and how to address the problems we've faced before that led us to choosing to keep our public armed (ideally, armed and prepared for war.)
Tangent: I remain amused how military and assault are terms used to make weapons sound more dangerous, when civilian weapons tend to outperform the military counterparts. Military stuff is produced in mass by the lowest bidder. Civilian gear is made for a higher price point and is made to be customizable for the individual...and punch through an elephant if that's what you're hunting. And no civilian has need for a howitzer --or a nuke-- enough to actually buy one.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Wow. Impassioned defending of the 2nd Amendment on one hand, whilst simultaneously tearing up and targeting a stream of urine on, at least, the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 13th, & 14th with the other.
Most impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
This does not further the debate. (I hope) nobody around here is going to take you seriously with this kind of rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
The 2nd amendment is the problem. It is the biggest piece of collective stupidity ever enacted.
From my side of the atlantic all the pro-gun arguments just look barking mad.
The simplest solution to the problem is to remove the second amendment, put in really effective gun control and disarm the police.
That, and only that would save many lives in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Your simple solution is no solution because it doesn't deal with the intrinsic problem.
The intrinsic problem is people. It doesn't matter what you allow or ban. As long as people don't control themselves and take responsibility for their own actions, nothing will work work. As long as people want to look out only for themselves and their own, there will be conflicts of all sorts.
The tools are not the problem, it always comes back to the tool user.
There are many who just don't give a thought to anything other than their own pleasure (however that may manifest itself) and they will take what they want, when they want.
You can ban everything and they will still find a way to get what they want, banned or not.
Unfortunately, the "leaders" of society have demonstrated to everyone that getting what you want is an acceptable way of life. These "leaders" include (but not limited to) politicians, scientists, musicians, business owners, actors, criminals, police, military, pilots, sports stars.
You can add to this list as you will.
People are the problem and until we as individuals decide we want to change for the better, things are not going to change for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"People are the problem"
We build a civilization with the people we have, not the people we wish we had.
And generally, it's the same sort of people with whom everyone else is building their civilization. We're neither especially bright nor especially dull.
We know people to be fairly altruistic regarding their top fifty facebook friends, and want to throw rocks at everyone else. When we pack them dense like in the urbs, that requires that they develop a greater sense of community (and that sense of community helps when strangers walk into rural towns).
Our politicians are being the same naked apes, and they have zero motivation to improve things. And that's because we've gamed the system so that their job is not to run the nation, but to get elected again. So that's all they do.
It's time to start the Rebel Alliance. And it's time to create a charter for what our new system will look like. There's been a lot of discussion already as to what would help (e.g. alternates to FPTP).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People are the problem
How prolific that statement would be if we weren't faced with politicians with agendas not loyal to America and Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
Sorry I can only give you one Insightful vote.
I don't like guns because I don't like violence. That said, I've seen some good cases made for keeping them for self-defence. Proper gun control would legally restrict gun ownership to sane, law-abiding citizens who have passed some kind of safety course, provided, perhaps, byt the NRA. Isn't gun safety what they are supposed to be about?
It's been argued that doing this won't affect the attitudes of criminals, who will simply flout the law, but we've also made theft and murder illegal, and criminals flout those laws. Should we make The Purge a real thing, in that case? By no means!
Well then, let's be reasonable about this, and make it both illegal and difficult for crazy, criminal, and untrained people to own a gun.
As for rising up against the government in the event that it becomes a tyranny, everyone who's tried it so far has been either killed or imprisoned. The Civil War was about the Southern states complaining about the Northern states passing laws they didn't want, if memory serves. Any attempt at planning and carrying out an armed rebellion is utterly doomed to failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy gun owners
As a crazy person (id est, with diagnoses by professionals) who is yet fairly harmless, I resent having my rights infringed further because you and other members of the public are frightened by mental illness.
And no, there's no litmus test to separate out the axe murderers from the rest of us.
As for rising up against the government in the event that it becomes a tyranny, everyone who's tried it so far has been either killed or imprisoned.
If I recall my history correctly, we here in the states had a problem with an oppressive power on that side of the pond and were able to cast off our shackles.
Want something more recent? Afghanistan appears to be resistant to foreign oppressors as well, whether Soviet or NATO, hence the struggle to smack down those pesky criminal terrorist types has been going on longer than the whole of WWII.
I am curious, though. You guys have a history where occasionally the big guy with the sword and armor and alleged divine-right to hew the rest of you down would get uppity and decide to kill and rape for his own pleasure. Did you just lie down and tolerate it? Or did you just spit in his tea when he wasn't looking, Nazi-occupied-Paris style?
If you ask Mexico (who love their guns as much as we love ours), they've had scads of oppressors, foreign and domestic, and those weapons have come in handy many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy gun owners
And I'm pretty sure no US private citizens acting as a militia were sent to Afghanistan. You appear to be, correction, you are confusing the well armed militia with the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Training
A tyrannistic government disarms their populace then goes on a genocidal path wiping anyone and everyone they don't like. Germany, Russia, probably lots more countries if i cared to look up the history of them.
But I am sure the current horribly corrupt and criminal American government won't repeat history like they have been doing with everything else right? let's remove the last line of defense people have against criminals and let the criminals with badges protect them instead, when they are not murdering them of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We're staying here until you give us the justification needed to shoot you."
After repeatedly demanding, "Where is the gun?" and "We know you have a gun," Deanne finally "complied with officers' request and produced a handgun, stating, 'Oh, here it is.'"
Then they shot her to death.
Honestly it's hard to interpret that situation as anything but deliberate, pre-meditated murder.
The woman was not armed when first apprehended, not restrained in any way, indicating that they didn't consider her a threat, and harassed until she produced the weapon being searched for, upon which she was killed.
If they thought she was a threat, she would have been restrained.
If they thought she might turn the gun on one of the officers, they wouldn't have left her in the same room or had her involved with the search, but would have moved her to a different location and left her under watch while they conducted the search.
They were either just looking for an excuse to kill her, in which case murder charges should be brought against those involved, or so grossly incompetent that they let a 'dangerous suspect' not only get their hands on a weapon, but placed them in a situation that the 'dangerous suspect' would have been almost certain to be the first to find it, and had she had murderous intentions several deaths would have been highly likely, in which case they should be fired for gross negligence and incompetence at the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We're staying here until you give us the justification needed to shoot you."
Try harder, or you won't get a job as District Attorney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We're staying here until you give us the justification needed to shoot you."
That is not going to happen. They have an unions that will lie for them. That has powerful lawyers to deny deny deny. To make sure they get off without any punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "We're staying here until you give us the justification needed to shoot you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "We're staying here until you give us the justification needed to shoot you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising
And that right there is the problem the majority face in convincing people that the 'bad apples' really are the minority, and the majority are actually 'good guys'.
If police actually cared to hold their own accountable, punish them for abuse of power/authority, then the public might be able to believe them when they point to the corrupt members of the profession and claim, 'They do not represent us'. By instead shielding those members, protecting them from being punished or even investigated however it's hard not to assume that the reason for that is because the majority do support such actions, even if they don't engage in them directly, which means the worst of the lot do accurately represent the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising
Personally my guess would be more than a little of both, the bosses don't feel like dealing with what it would take to get rid of a troublesome officer, primarily(I would guess) not wanting to have to admit that one of their 'fine, upstanding officers' isn't someone who deserves the position, while the rank and file either like being able to not have to worry about being 'professional' all the time, or are pressured to shut their mouths when others cross the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising
It's hard to believe when the corporation (police departments and the likes) actually seems to protect abusers but we shouldn't be cynical. But I see your point. It's those cases where both are technically right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Was it a pump action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kain and Able right? Envy is a damn powerful sin leading to the majority of all human problems.
There is even a commandment about it... thou shalt not covet.
If you think about the ripple effect, envy causes more pain, death, and destruction than any other sin in existence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Question
And why weren't the cops in question using something at least approximating to common sense in these encounters? Last time I looked, non-lethal weapons were part of the standard uniform most places, yet they went for the lethal ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Question
Because really, I'd love to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple Question
But hey, cops are saints, aren't them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple Question
I hate idiots like the one you are responding too.
Government corruption is the leading cause of death of any kind. Corrupt government has literally murdered more innocent than ALL WAR and one of the reasons the 2nd was created per the founders.
With the police going this far to destroy citizens we really need to evaluate how necessary the police for is while they are in this mindset.
We should consider disbanding several of the most corrupt police departments as a BIG sign of how little we are doing to endure this garbage much longer. AND create a law that people working in the public sector cannot unionize period!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, genius! Call the police and say you are naked and you get a free ride to the other side. Easy suicide. /sarcasm
I'm sure shooting a person that is deemed suicidal will help tons.
In any case, if law enforcement was actually focused on their job, which is protecting the citizens, there wouldn't be so many cases of force abuse. But instead they are focusing on their own integrity and in a war against the citizenry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, their job is enforcing laws. There isn't a police department around that still uses the old "protect and serve" motto. They protect the rights of property holders, and they protect some nebulous concept of "public order", and they protect themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to be the current motto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not in that order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Serve
Don't call the police. The supreme court found that they are not obligated to help you. When you call them you risk theft (civil forfeiture), arrest if you are breaking one of America's laws for all seasons or death.
Don't answer their questions. They're already helping themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...oh, sod it. Never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling Rep. Ken Buck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have reformatted the data in new charts:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15isVigt9Sm-kULYzfIfhrzD3447BJrbTeocFCMdHnUs/edit?usp= sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To show it in relation to the population of the country as a whole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would just be bad for different reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graph
I could make lots of graphs boring by picking poor values for the y-axis like that. And the data is pretty much impossible; in some years the number of people who have "ever used" went up by several times more than the number of people who used in the "past year". This leads me to believe that the margin of error is large enough as to make this useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Graph
It's hard to say because the data is in three year increments. If we had every year it might make more sense but from this we can't tell what's going on in the two years not included. Not to say that's a great way to present data, just that it's not impossible like it looks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't use terrible plots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood should be Hayweird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the Mandate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Death of Deanne Choate
District Attorney Steve Howe said Monday that the officer’s use of force was justified under Kansas law and no charges would be filed.
Wow. One of these things is not like the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible that the review process (e.g. paperwork) of police killings and firearms discharges is significantly shorter and easier than managing live suspects or even witness testimonies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aggressive Cops. .
Also under the normal structure of law enforcement, the chief of police or sheriff is usually accountable to an elected official(mayor), which gives citizens a way to demand changes when required. But with regional drug strike forces that do not directly answer to any one local elected official, citizens have little ability to effect change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aggressive Cops. .
Also under the normal structure of law enforcement, the chief of police or sheriff is usually accountable to an elected official(mayor)
If I understand correctly, the chief of police is typically a city position and answers to a mayor, city council, or the like, and sheriff is a county position and is itself an elected office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically, increased restrictions on the use of police batons (such as forbidding head strikes) that were enacted over the past few decades in the aim of public safety has had the opposite effect, encouraging American police to use clubs less and guns more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accountability for Hostile LE Policies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Current practice demonstrates the converse of Maxim 28
Despite the mercenary references, the cited comic is specifically about that policy in the context of law enforcement. Senior leadership rewards squads that complete their arrests without resorting to violence.
In the real world, current practice is that the price of collateral damage is often zero (no punishment, no reward) and sometimes negative (rewarded for causing collateral damage), so why not engage in overkill? If there is no external reward for being careful, and there might be an external penalty for caution, why be careful at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is foreign agenda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]