re: Grand Jury Doesn't Indict Cops who kill man with down syndrome

quote:

---

I believe that the more militarized the police become the greater the chance for police stepping over the line.

---

Agreed...it's a terrible direction.

quote:

---

But there's a large percentage of society which respects the office of the police more than the respect is deserved.

---

It's why GJs almost always fail to indict cops in situations where anyone else would have.

quote:

---

"No intent" isn't the greatest defense to me. I'm sure their noble intentions of clearing the theater of this nuisance were altruistic in the extreme.

---

I'm not sure police have an obligation to be altruistic?

quote:

---

It's a person with Down's for chrissakes.

---

Ok. I get that. So what laws should be ignored for them? Not arguing that they're shouldn't be any difference, just wonder where the line should be drawn.

And, as a follow up, how is a policeman supposed to know where that line lies? We never want cops playing "judge and jury", but that works both ways... unfortunately.

If we we expect them not to use judgement on the job. Seemingly senseless arrest are part of the consequences.

(FTR, I'd prefer they be allowed some room for judgement.)

quote:

---

And the majority of cops who stop motorists aren't subject to any sort of danger. But the odds aren't applied in reverse, are they?

---

I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.

quote:

---

How many people dying from asphyxia/chest/neck compressions will it take to institute change? This is a known problem

---

Is it? Roughly 31,000 people will die in car accidents this year. One estimate is 280,000 will die this year from obesity related disease. How does police-induced asphyxia stack up against that?

I'm not suggesting we should simply ignore it. But on the list of hung we should be worried about, it seems overblown. It just seems like we're having an orchestrated emotional reaction here.

That always makes me suspicious. Especially, when I see lede's like the OP... which seem crafted specifically to reinforce that emotional response...

quote:

---

And IMV and the laws view malice isn't required to bear responsibility for the death of another.

---

We weren't talking about law, but the victim's family's grief. But the certainly makes differentiation. There is a large difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter and self defense.

quote:

---

I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.

---

Cops want us to respect their often hyper-reactive responses based upon incidences that have a very small statistical chance of happening. Then, when the shoe is on the other foot and they've killed someone through negligence or carelessness or whatever you want to term their issue here, we're supposed to recognize that the incidents are really rare. They don't get it both ways.

quote:

---

What laws should be ignored

---

Who said anything about laws being ignored? I don't need them to ignore laws. I need them to not kill fat people through chest and neck compression in non-violent confrontations. That's also the part of the judgment I want them to exercise. I do want them to utilize judgment on the job. I don't see a lot of that in these publicized incidences. And the rush to defend the indefensible keeps widening the chasm between civilians and LEOs.

Your last argument is just stupid. Fewer than 50 cops will be killed in the line of duty by violence this year. Based upon your argument, I think we can cross that off the list of things to worry about.

quote:

---

But he wasn't killed for watching a movie twice.

---

frick it. He kinda was. If he had a drug conviction, the police would've released it to sully his reputation and justify their reaction. Another time they want it both ways. He didn't have a drug conviction. He wasn't pimping hoes. He wasn't running a fight club. He was sitting in a movie theater watching a fricking movie. That's what precipitated police force on a young man with Down's syndrome.

Sorry. I went with the gunfire ones and missed the others. That doesn't change the argument. If we need thousands of deaths to be concerned about something, police deaths in the line of duty through violence isn't a blip on the radar. Feel free to change the tack of his argument.

quote:

---

Sorry. I went with the gunfire ones and missed the others. That doesn't change the argument. If we need thousands of deaths to be concerned about something, police deaths in the line of duty through violence isn't a blip on the radar. Feel free to change the tack of his argument.

---

No problem, but we have over 500K injuries a year also. Only about 1% of police encounters result in violence. The vast majority of them are started by the bad guy. Do we need to train better? Yes and we need to hire better. Look at Cleveland. Bad tactics and a bad hire led to that.

quote:

---

What kind of training do these dopey fricking policemen receive? It needs an overhaul. And do GJ instructions now include the admonition that a cop is justified in doing whatever the frick he wants if a suspect resists in any way?

---

It is because everyone buys into the bullshite claim that the cop was "fearing for his life".

Also, people don't want to believe that cops are out of control.