Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aren't you back pedaling on your initial phrase. Why is there transparency for the person shot but not for the officer who commenced with the shooting?
Because police officers don't make thereats to kill this person's family. These thugs in MO are making threats to kill the officer and family. Would you want your name released knowing this?
A police shooting rarely comes down to the word of the officer and nothing else. There is almost always physical evidence, witnesses, videos, and other types of evidence other than simply relying on what the officer said to find out what happened. The prior criminal history of the person shot has no bearing whatsoever on the facts surrounding the shooting, aside from being a motive to engage in poor decision making. Most people have no comprehension of the amount of scrutiny that goes into the investigation when a police officer kills someone. Many people like to think that it's very quickly all swept under the rug, but the truth is far from that.
In spite all that, the frequency of these incidents is alarming. You may expect the numer of cases to decrease, but it does not. How do you explain it?
Aren't you back pedaling on your initial phrase. Why is there transparency for the person shot but not for the officer who commenced with the shooting?
I was talking about transparency of the investigation, not of the involved individuals as the investigation is being done, nor do I mean by that daily/hourly press conferences while the investigation is being done. By transparency I mean the police ought to be subjected to outside investigation when a fatality occurs and shouldn't be able to hide under a shroud of "WE are investigating ourselves". Our current system of trial-by-mass media is extremely damaging to community relations and justice itself. Those who serve and protect us ought have the right to a fair and inparticle investigation without being subjected to threats, to either themselves or their families, by reactionaries stirred up by people who make their living being agitators. What purpose is served by releasing the officer's name?
By the way, if the community "spokesmen" and attorneys representing the families of a person who has been shot don't want that person's criminal record brought up, they shouldn't get on the news going on and on and on about what a great, law abiding, model citizen that person was. Family members are allowed to blindly love them and see the person through the lens of denial, professional rabble rousers are another story.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Well, I feel that character assassination is a tactic used because people can't ''defend'' themselves. Dead men don't speak. A person that is 6'4'' doesn't mean that they are automatically a bully. Even if they are a bully, it doesn't not mean that they are a bully in a moment where force is used. Can character lead up to something? Yes. But our justice system shouldn't account for that. People call me ''nice'', but there are moments where I wasn't so nice.
It's funny because when certain types of people do school shootings, we have a reverse situation. ''But he was so nice...so smart''.
Police officers always have the upper hand because they are part of the Executive Branch and have authority to do so. A licence to kill so to speak. There are other underlying issues people don't want to talk about, so they want to say ''oh noes, it's his character'' to avoid the confrontation altogether.
I was talking about transparency of the investigation, not of the involved individuals as the investigation is being done, nor do I mean by that daily/hourly press conferences while the investigation is being done. By transparency I mean the police ought to be subjected to outside investigation when a fatality occurs and shouldn't be able to hide under a shroud of "WE are investigating ourselves". Our current system of trial-by-mass media is extremely damaging to community relations and justice itself. Those who serve and protect us ought have the right to a fair and inparticle investigation without being subjected to threats, to either themselves or their families, by reactionaries stirred up by people who make their living being agitators. What purpose is served by releasing the officer's name?
By the way, if the community "spokesmen" and attorneys representing the families of a person who has been shot don't want that person's criminal record brought up, they shouldn't get on the news going on and on and on about what a great, law abiding, model citizen that person was. Family members are allowed to blindly love them and see the person through the lens of denial, professional rabble rousers are another story.
But one can currently be a law abiding citizen, so the criminal record has no relevance. Those specific moments are what matter, not any character traits leading up to that encounter with the officer of the law. In many instances, it's more or less a cosmic irony rather than that person's character.
Good people are always good until they ''snap''. A good person can totally kill an officer without a prior record. People don't like defamation of character because that never presents a fair trial. The jury becomes biased because they keep hearing ''these things'' about the victim.
I do think there should be transparency all around, but it's hard when people try to sway public opinion. A man is only as good as his last action. Here's an analogy. A man was good for his whole life, decided to try heroin once and then died. Would one call him an addict? Then if one had a history of crime, but decides to get some pizza at the Pizza Hut does he deserve to be robbed?
Here in St. Louis there was recently a case where an individual had a history of embezzling but was robbed. The robber is in jail.
In all, defamation of character takes away from individual actions that have taken place
In the past I've read that police are not trained to wound a suspect. Often they have too little time to thoroughly analyze a situation before making a decision. It isn't as if there is plenty of time to figure out exactly what is happening.
Bingo. This is real life, not some B movie. Better yet lets twist all the information in favor of the "victim" and make all the police officers the villains. Lets make their job so difficult that no one wants to do it or in order to hire someone willing to be societies human garbage collectors our taxes need to triple in order to maintain order. Lets also sensationalize the rogue cop theory to the point that we lose perspective and consider all of them potential assassins. ( I wonder how many of us would want to go to the hospital if we realized that tens of thousands of people are killed every year because of medical mistakes?) The 400/100 ratio is too high for me. I'd like to see it 500/0. There is collateral damage in war, in health care and yes in police work as well, but if you look at the numbers the police are doing a far better job then the rest of us in high risk fields. The "character" of someone involved in these situations is totally relevant and the truth should come out. Who ever reported to the media that this "innocent unarmed teenage was shot in the back with their hands in the air" should be held accountable for starting the riots. That flipped the switch into rogue cop mode and put it on steroids. A rational thinking person would find that information suspect but because it's a cop involved it's perfectly fine to go ahead and assume that the person that may have been involved in a life and death situation is the villain. Does anyone really believe that a highly trained educated police officer would shoot someone in the back with their hands in the air knowing full well that the forensics would prove that it's murder, or would you find it more believable that that mentality would exist in the uneducated world of the street thug with no regard for human life? Yes character has it's place in determining the truth, it's something that shouldn't be sugar coated but reported in all of it's gritty glory. Sweeping the streets of human trash especially in certain demographics comes with a high price and tragic ends are often a reflection of the moral fiber of the person involved. It is what it is.
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
Why is it that we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent or unarmed person, if the person is later considered a "bad person."
In these cases the victims are not currently involved (at the time of the shooting) in anything problematic. And the police officer has zero evidence of any alleged "bad" behavior when they pull the weapon. Are police officers psychic? Do the victims walk around with signs on their head saying "I might be the suspect in the robbery you haven't heard about or started investigating yet?"
For example, in the Michael Brown case, lots of people are trying to justify it because Brown is suspected of robbing a convenience store (which is not an offense punishable by death in any means). But the police officer involved knew nothing of the robbery or the description of the suspects. So why is this relevant to the his case of an officer involved shooting. That info is immaterial as it wasn't available to the officer at the time of the shooting.
As Americans we are entitled to sentencing by a jury orpf our peers, but we let police officers justify being judge and jury by allowing info that was not available to the officer to influence our opinions. That's not fair or just!
American news media understands that most black people will focus on the innocence of the victim and the race of the cop. Whites will ignore the graduation photos and focus on the wannabe gangsta photos...as validation that the victims death was justified.
Reading/watching Al-Jazeera and BBC provides a completely different perspective from Fox, CNN and MSNBC. American media (when dealing with American stories) will try to color the debate....pun intended.
I personally am more concerned about the "victimization" of criminals who make choices that result in them being put down by the police.
This young man isn't a victim, there's a reason that the officer shot him, and it wasn't because he was big and black and minding his own business helping old ladies cross the street and rescuing cats from trees.
The facts are, this particular individual collected at least (Juvie records are sealed so who Knows how many more) 4 felonies at only 18, and had just committed another robbery shortly before being shot. So while none of that I agree is a reason to be shot by police, it's absolutely relevant information when assessing the situation. This guy was a habitual criminal therefore the officers story is not only plausible, but likely. No character assassination needed, the criminal thug took care of that on his own.
If a police officer tells you to get on the ground and put your hands behind your head, do it. It doesn't matter if you think you did anything wrong or if you hate the police. Do it, otherwise the officer is going to get very concerned about what you're going to do next, and any motions in his direction is going to be perceived as an attack and be dealt with accordingly.
This is part of living in a society of law and order, but unfortunately many of these savage thugs were not raised in anything resembling law or order with no father to teach them right and wrong, so they make stupid choices. You can point fingers in every direction but you're ultimately responsible for your own character and your own decisions.
Yes, when white men shoot up movie theaters and blow up marathon runners. Rather than calling them thugs...we try to figure out what psychological issues were present that cause them to snap.
Maybe we should just call them thugs instead of excusing their behavior.
I agree with you 100%, because I know that's what you meant when talking about victimization of criminals
Yes, when white men shoot up movie theaters and blow up marathon runners. Rather than calling them thugs...we try to figure out what psychological issues were present that cause them to snap.
Maybe we should just call them thugs instead of excusing their behavior.
I agree with you 100%, because I know that's what you meant when talking about victimization of criminals
I don't know of anyone who excused their behavior. Thugs are different than these guys, but they are just as bad as thugs or worse.
I call someone who shoots up a theater a sick nut job.
In spite all that, the frequency of these incidents is alarming. You may expect the numer of cases to decrease, but it does not. How do you explain it?
The country is becoming more violent and desensitized to violence. The only reason that the murder rate doesn't go up is because medical care has become so advanced that most people who get shot or attacked with deadly weapons don't die. Read retired US Army Col. Dave Grossman's book "On Killing." There are also other issues. True criminals--the people who should be afraid of the police--aren't afraid of the police anymore like they used to be. The image that the police want to portray is that of a kind, helpful servant. While that's all well and good for the average law abiding citizen, there is a genuine need for criminals bent on violence to have a healthy fear of the police. That may not be a politically correct statement, but it's the truth. Without that fear, there's nothing to stop someone from challenging an officer. The bear doesn't fear putting his hand into the beehive to get honey until he gets stung.
The entire public attitude against the police and government in general is also changing. When I was younger and a cop brought me home to my parents after a night of teenage partying, my parents would get mad, ask what I did, and discipline me. Now if that happens the parents ask the cop why he is harassing their child. Totally different view of things and much of it is based on the media. This entire thread is basically about the media. The "character assassination" of someone shot by the police isn't done by the department, it's done by the media outlets who print the stories because it generates money for them.
The bottom line is that the more stupid people out there who are making stupid decisions and attacking or threatening the police, the more people who are going to get shot by the police.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 08-20-2014 at 04:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
