For Calm Discussion Only

[thetragichippy]

I watched Megyn Kelly interview a panel last night and was taken back by some of the comments. Most of the conversation centered around the cops changing and weeding out the racist and bad cops. Some said cops fear blacks because of skin color. Some said the cops were racist. One said Philando Castile was murdered by the cop for no reason, some said because he was scared. Some talked about the video of Alton Sterling as solid proof he was murdered. Some say the system itself is set up to be racist. I have a few questions that I would like to see if anyone can answer with facts. 

Please take all rules of this forum into consideration when responding. I will shut this down immediately if it gets out of hand. 

1.  We have seen several officer involved shootings in the last couple of years. Most of the officers have been cleared of any charges, so It appears the officers were following the law. So, if we want the cops to "change", the law will have to be amended or changed as well, otherwise they can legally continue to use the same lethal force. So, Under what circumstances do you feel an officer has a right to make a lethal shot/shots? Would you hold yourself to the same standard? Is there a specific law you would change?

2.  If the "system" is a racist system, what would you do specifically to change it. In other words, what specific law do you think is racist, and how would you change it?

3. If you are 100% sure Philando Castile was murdered, how do you know? The only video I have watched was after the fact. If it is OK to convict this officer for murder based on a video after the shooting occurred, would you want that same standard used on you, if you ever had to use lethal force?

Please stay on topic and answer the specific questions.

Thanks!

 

[Hagar]

1-. A specific law changed?  Yes.  If police are in a high speed chase situation, which obviously endangers the public, I think the police should be able to use deadly force to stop the chase.  Would require doing it in an area with little, or no traffic

2-. I'm not aware of any racist laws

3-. Agree, until all the facts are in, no one knows the guilt  or innocence of the Officer.

[tvc184]

Calm discussion?  

I believe that many people believe that there is systemic racism in police work. I think that complete nonsense. Systemic would mean something like a department condones such actions or covers it up or in other words, the system is the culprit. I find that a difficult pill to swallow. 

If something fairly minor like any officer is found uttering racial slurs, even at the police station behind closed doors where others are not supposed to hear (even another officer that might be offended), he will almost certainly be punished. I am not saying that two cops might not have a conversation that might offend someone and say what they want but if any person complains then there will be heck to pay. 

Out of almost a million police officers, can you find a true racist? Probably but you will have to dig. I find it very hard to believe in places like Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange white officers (which is almost exclusively when it is used) would want to work around people that they despise by skin color. Is there prejudice rather than racism? I am fairly certain of it. 

As a police supervisor I get a lot of complaints from a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. Almost none are for physical abuse. According to the FBI UCR stats almost 35,000 people a day are arrested and this area certainly sees its share yet we have almost no complaints of abuse. Of course deadly force is always in the spotlight and it should be when someone dies but this area (Golden Triangle) alone has thousands of arrests a year, most are on police video and many I am sure are recorded elsewhere and yet we see almost no incidents. That ones that do happen are almost always initiated by the suspect. 

I find that people across the board have very little idea what the laws are in various situations. They spit out the words unconstitutional or brutality or abuse as much as they do racism and know even less about it. Sure everyone knows that it is against the law to assault someone, to take another person's money or to possession unlawful drugs. What they are clueless about in the law is not the criminal laws themselves but criminal procedure. To some extent I find that officers also have some lack of knowledge in that area however they generally know what allows them to use force, make entries without warrants, etc. 

All you have to do is watch the news program of your choice and you can get filled with gibberish. You will hear such things (heard it many times) that the police need probable cause to detain you. That is not true and it only take "reasonable suspicion" according to the US Supreme Court almost 50 years ago. I still hear lawyers on Fox, CNN, etc., say that probable cause is needed. Nonsense. Heck, the police don't even need reasonable suspicion if they simply do not tell you words like "stop" or "come here" which are considered detentions under the Fourth Amendment. If the officers sees you walking and calmly says, "do you mind talking to me" or "can I talk to you for a moment" and you stop, you are not being detained at all and have by your actions "consented" to stopping. The officer needs nothing to justify any more than two guys in line at a grocery store talking to each other. 

For uses of force that often come to the media attention, again there is a huge gap in the law and knowledge of it by the public. In the case of Wardlow v. IL in 2000 (fairly recent case) the USSC said that looking at the police and running in itself was "reasonable suspicion". Wardlow was standing around and the police even testified that he was doing nothing suspicious. He noticed the cops and then turned and started running away. The USSC said that you have the right to "go about one's business" free from interference from the government (usually the police) but looking at cops and moving quickly away was not "going about one's business". In this case the police chased and tackled Wardlow and he claimed his rights were violated. The police found an illegal gun on him. The USSC did not agree that his rights were violated. The case itself is not that big of a deal however people today would argue that running by itself is not suspicious. Again, it is lack of knowledge that most officers have that the public has access to but generally does not care to understand unless they are watching the news or knows someone that is arrested. 

In uses of force it is the same. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms the USSC said that the police could get a driver out of a vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson they said that the police could get the passengers out also with no reasonable suspicion needed. The fact that traffic stops are dangerous to officers gives them the limited authority to get people out if they wish so as to keep an eye on them. In the Sandra Bland case I saw people writing that an officer could not remove the driver. While he made a lawful arrest anyway, he did not need to do so in order to remove her for his safety. There was the video of the man where the police busted his window on the passenger's side of a vehicle and drug him out that went viral. Again I saw, the police can't do that. I would say that most state's laws as backed up by the USSC say (again) otherwise. The passenger needs to comply.

In most cases if the officer has the authority to detain, arrest or search, you must submit to the action. Resistance in any form opens the officer up to uses of force. That force must be reasonable considering the circumstances. If a guy pushes an officer it is not grounds to use deadly force. If the guy tries to take an officers weapons, it likely is lawful to use deadly force to stop him......  as we saw in the Captain Arnold case in Orange where the off duty officer shot the guy he claimed reached for his gun. A fight or use of force by the police need not be fair and the police can use any amount of force that is needed to overcome that resistance. The question then becomes how much force is needed or is "reasonable" under the circumstances. In Orange we found out that just reaching for a gun was enough for the grand jury to no bill the officer. I can't remember that case name that I am thinking of but the police having a lesser force option are not required to use that lesser force as long as the greater force was lawful. For example a guy is standing 15 feet away with a knife and refuses to drop it and the police shoot him. Was it possible for the police to use a Taser or pepper spray instead of a gun? Maybe. The Court says that it does not matter what the officer may have done lesser as long as the greater force was justified and a guy threatening an officer with a knife a few feet away likely will be ruled as a lawful use of deadly force. Merely saying that a Taser might have worked does not negate the use of deadly force. In the Baton Rouge case I saw many comments in different forums where people said the police "could have" used different physical force or maybe used a Taser (again since the first time did not work) or pepper, etc. That does not matter as long as deadly force was reasonable. Of course some people will never believe that the police can lawfully use force in such as case but don't be shocked if the officers are cleared. If the guy has a gun and has a hand free that might be struggling for it, an officer on the ground in a fight with the guy who is unlawfully resisting arrest will likely be seen as in reasonable fear of serious injury and deadly force will likely be lawful. It always goes back to, stop resisting arrest but that apparently falls on deaf ears. 

I could go on for pages but you can probably see where the ignorance is used to show police misconduct where there may be none. I am not saying that there is not misconduct because there is. I have seen many police videos where the officer was not justified. I have worked with officers that were fired and had a hand in two of them getting fired. On one of them it was my word almost alone that got an officer terminated almost immediately for abuse. In fact he was sent home half way through his shift and never returned. There are many others though that are claimed as abuse or unlawful when the law allows the action. Much of what I have seen that is claimed to be murder or an unlawful use of force simply is not by law and it has been backed up in court rulings and jury decisions. An example is the Michael Brown case where I know the US Attorney General want to go public and proclaim that he got the bad officer and was a hero but the facts did not back up that wish. As much as many people wanted the hands up don't shoot nonsense to be true, in fact it was all a lie. 

As to your specific case of Philando Castile, it could go either way. A lot will depend on the officer's audio where it can be found what really happened and not the woman that thinks she is an internet sensation. If what I have seen in the last day is true, part of her story is unraveling. I think ABC News was told by her that there was no mention of a gun but in her "live shot" she claimed that Castile told the officer that he had a gun and had a license. That alone would be huge in the case. Of course we really do not know what happened but the officer is already convicted in the eyes of many people just like Darren Wilson was in the Micheal Brown shooting. Even the US DOJ could not find any wrongdoing to bring an indictment yet there are still people claiming that Michael Brown was murdered. The after the fact video by Castile's girlfriend will probably have very little to do with the investigation in reality if the officer had good audio of the stop. In both the Baton Rouge and MN cases the officers might be indicted but I will lean toward no criminal charges simply because of laws and court rulings. Since we really have no clue as to what really happened in either case since we only know the outcome, anything that we think will be a guess. It would be better to guess by law and not by emotion.  

[LumRaiderFan]

On 7/12/2016 at 1:15 PM, thetragichippy said:

I watched Megyn Kelly interview a panel last night and was taken back by some of the comments. Most of the conversation centered around the cops changing and weeding out the racist and bad cops. Some said cops fear blacks because of skin color. Some said the cops were racist. One said Philando Castile was murdered by the cop for no reason, some said because he was scared. Some talked about the video of Alton Sterling as solid proof he was murdered. Some say the system itself is set up to be racist. I have a few questions that I would like to see if anyone can answer with facts. 

Please take all rules of this forum into consideration when responding. I will shut this down immediately if it gets out of hand. 

1.  We have seen several officer involved shootings in the last couple of years. Most of the officers have been cleared of any charges, so It appears the officers were following the law. So, if we want the cops to "change", the law will have to be amended or changed as well, otherwise they can legally continue to use the same lethal force. So, Under what circumstances do you feel an officer has a right to make a lethal shot/shots? Would you hold yourself to the same standard? Is there a specific law you would change?

2.  If the "system" is a racist system, what would you do specifically to change it. In other words, what specific law do you think is racist, and how would you change it?

3. If you are 100% sure Philando Castile was murdered, how do you know? The only video I have watched was after the fact. If it is OK to convict this officer for murder based on a video after the shooting occurred, would you want that same standard used on you, if you ever had to use lethal force?

Please stay on topic and answer the specific questions.

Thanks!

 

1. If he/she feels their life or anyone involved in the situation is in danger of injury/death.  Just because he is a police officer doesn't mean he has to give anyone any more of an opportunity to harm them than a private citizen.  Yes, I should hold myself to the same standard...I'm sure the legal system would.  No new laws.

2. I don't think the system is racist...there are racist people in the system, but that is in any "system", sadly.

3. I don't know...let the facts come out.

[thetragichippy]

Thanks LumRaiderFan, I was beginning to think people didn't like me. 

Funny things about facts, they always seem to come out. 

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Thanks LumRaiderFan, I was beginning to think people didn't like me. 

Funny things about facts, they always seem to come out.

......... but are ignored when the results aren't to a person's liking. 

[baddog]

1. People need to change their attitudes to conform with the laws that are there. Criminals, once arrested, have more rights than law abiding citizens (sarcasm). If a cop asks you what your business is in this neighborhood and you remain silent, you could be arrested, but once arrested, you have the right to remain silent.

2. I am so sick of everything hinging on race that I have no good answer.

3. Sad, no one wants to believe the shooter. Hopefully I never have to kill anyone. Videos can be misleading when the actual thing you need to see is blocked. Our minds can do unbelievable things with skewed info.

[tvc184]

17 minutes ago, baddog said:

1. People need to change their attitudes to conform with the laws that are there. Criminals, once arrested, have more rights than law abiding citizens (sarcasm). If a cop asks you what your business is in this neighborhood and you remain silent, you could be arrested, but once arrested, you have the right to remain silent.

2. I am so sick of everything hinging on race that I have no good answer.

3. Sad, no one wants to believe the shooter. Hopefully I never have to kill anyone. Videos can be misleading when the actual thing you need to see is blocked. Our minds can do unbelievable things with skewed info.

 People arrested do have more rights than those not under arrest or at least for practical purposes.

 Also, if you are not in custody and an officer in TX asks you anything, you can refuse including your name and there is no criminal penalty. In other words you cannot lawfully be arrested for remaining silent even if not under arrest. If you are under arrest you must give your name, address and date of birth but nothing else. Failure to do so can result in another criminal charge. 

   

[PAMFAM10]

2. The south and Jim Crow 60s/70s. Segregation and oppression. Who really was on the front lines. The bigot politicians Governors mayors. What was the tool of choice to put fear and handout beatings on blacks the local PD. My point is although 40-50 years ago that's only 2 generations. And in that time a lot has changed. but excuse me if I find a organization that used dogs water hoses and clubs on people for trying to vote. A tad racist.

And I'll like to say this cops have hard jobs and I believe many of them or good guys. However none was drafted or force into the line of duty it was a choice and they do receive a paycheck. Nobody should be above the law not even the law.

THIS is my honest views I'm not pushing no left agenda I'm not racist so if you choose to reply leave both out. 

Sorry for not following your rundown hippy

[baddog]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 People arrested do have more rights than those not under arrest or at least for practical purposes.

 Also, if you are not in custody and an officer in TX asks you anything, you can refuse including your name and there is no criminal penalty. In other words you cannot lawfully be arrested for remaining silent even if not under arrest. If you are under arrest you must give your name, address and date of birth but nothing else. Failure to do so can result in another criminal charge. 

   

My remain silent angle is an old joke.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

2. The south and Jim Crow 60s/70s. Segregation and oppression. Who really was on the front lines. The bigot politicians Governors mayors. What was the tool of choice to put fear and handout beatings on blacks the local PD. My point is although 40-50 years ago that's only 2 generations. And in that time a lot has changed. but excuse me if I find a organization that used dogs water hoses and clubs on people for trying to vote. A tad racist.

And I'll like to say this cops have hard jobs and I believe many of them or good guys. However none was drafted or force into the line of duty it was a choice and they do receive a paycheck. Nobody should be above the law not even the law.

THIS is my honest views I'm not pushing no left agenda I'm not racist so if you choose to reply leave both out. 

Sorry for not following your rundown hippy

Never considered you racist or too left wing.....

 

fair answer

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

My remain silent angle is an old joke.

I must be having a gray moment. 

[westend1]

On 7/12/2016 at 1:15 PM, thetragichippy said:

I watched Megyn Kelly interview a panel last night and was taken back by some of the comments. Most of the conversation centered around the cops changing and weeding out the racist and bad cops. Some said cops fear blacks because of skin color. Some said the cops were racist. One said Philando Castile was murdered by the cop for no reason, some said because he was scared. Some talked about the video of Alton Sterling as solid proof he was murdered. Some say the system itself is set up to be racist. I have a few questions that I would like to see if anyone can answer with facts. 

Please take all rules of this forum into consideration when responding. I will shut this down immediately if it gets out of hand. 

1.  We have seen several officer involved shootings in the last couple of years. Most of the officers have been cleared of any charges, so It appears the officers were following the law. So, if we want the cops to "change", the law will have to be amended or changed as well, otherwise they can legally continue to use the same lethal force. So, Under what circumstances do you feel an officer has a right to make a lethal shot/shots? Would you hold yourself to the same standard? Is there a specific law you would change?

2.  If the "system" is a racist system, what would you do specifically to change it. In other words, what specific law do you think is racist, and how would you change it?

3. If you are 100% sure Philando Castile was murdered, how do you know? The only video I have watched was after the fact. If it is OK to convict this officer for murder based on a video after the shooting occurred, would you want that same standard used on you, if you ever had to use lethal force?

Please stay on topic and answer the specific questions.

Thanks!

 

"I watched Megyn Kelly interview a panel last night" .   Obviously.  These slanted questions guarantee that you don't want a real discussion.  Why does it matter, for purposes of discussion, that the officers were "cleared"?  Isn't that the whole issue?  Who cleared them?  Why does this mean that they were "following the law"?

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

"I watched Megyn Kelly interview a panel last night" .   Obviously.  These slanted questions guarantee that you don't want a real discussion.  Why does it matter, for purposes of discussion, that the officers were "cleared"?  Isn't that the whole issue?  Who cleared them?  Why does this mean that they were "following the law"?

Exactly my point. Who cares what questions were asked. Do you think these questions would of made a difference? They(some) think that a talk will make a difference. A talk won't change the law. Right now, in most of these cases, lethal force was an acceptable response. How can something change if doing it is legal? 

What is your answer?

 

 

 

[tvc184]

Who cleared the officers? The prosecuting attorneys and/or the grand jury whether they were county, state or federal and in some cases, some combination of them. 

Does clearing mean that officers followed the law? No. It means the prosecuting attorney and/or grand jury did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to bring to a trial or get a conviction.

Is that different than the standard for anyone else in a criminal accusation? No. That is the same standard for all criminal accusations. 

[Chester86]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Who cleared the officers? The prosecuting attorneys and/or the grand jury whether they were county, state or federal and in some cases, some combination of them. 

Does clearing mean that officers followed the law? No. It means the prosecuting attorney and/or grand jury did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to bring to a trial or get a conviction.

Is that different than the standard for anyone else in a criminal accusation? No. That is the same standard for all criminal accusations. 

And in some cases the actual Federal Govt (DOJ) cleared them in addition to those listed above.

[stevenash]

There was a plethora of Feds involved in Ferguson and Baltimore as well.  They did their level best to find fault with the officers and simply couldn't do it.

[LumRaiderFan]

None of this is good enough...clearance straight from the President's office will be required for satisfaction.