That's all very interesting [/sarcasm], but the question I asked the OP is which story was being referenced where a kid pointed the BB gun at the officer(s). I also asked where the quoted piece came from, because it's for damn sure that it didn't come out of the mind or keyboard of the person who posted it in the OP.
No one, especially not I, was confused about the story referencing the Tamir Rice killing in Cleveland. While there is surveillance video of him walking around the park with gun in hand and pointing it at passersby, to suggest that he pointed it at the cops when they arrived on scene and shot him less than 2 seconds later, is an assertion that cannot be proved by the video. Loehmann, the cop who pulled the trigger, was just fired last month (in May) for having lied on his employment application. The driver of the car was suspended for breaking department tactics policy on that day. One is a proven liar, the other a proven rules-breaker. Neither are credible witnesses. The City settled a wrongful death lawsuit for $6 million. Kinda hard to portray these two killers as victims of a jaded, ignorant and/or dishonest public in light of all these facts. They should've been prosecuted, but that thin blue line is rarely crossed by prosecutors, so that's a bit too much to expect.
Very few regulars around here who have stuck it out for any significant amount of time have ever screamed "blow them all away" for anything. Many of us speak more about the art of avoidance and/or deescalation than about any premise that would suggest we're looking for an "opportunity" to shoot our weapons at anyone, or even anywhere besides on the range or during training for that matter. We regularly criticize newcomers who do portray such an attitude, and your attitude is just the other side of that same coin, taking for granted that "many of the posters" around here can be pigeonholed the way you did above in any way, shape, manner or form.
Blues
You may not have been confused about the story (though I reference it as a case)...and "certainly not you" (there, I inserted my own sarcasm), feel better? But you most certainly missed the point of my post.
The point is the behavior that leads to these tragic shootings in the first place has to be addressed.
I have read many of your posts and the ones I have read are all, without exception, diatribes against police officers, but as yet I haven't read one where you actually look a the behavior or actions of anyone BUT the officer(s) involved.
Right mow [sic] there’s two policemen being charged because they shot a teenager that was running around a playground and they were sent there because of a 911 call saying there was someone running around with a gun pointing it at people and they roll up and boom he’s got a gun and points it at them and his little butt in at room temperature really fast.
What did you say in the one about all cops should be in jail before they start their shift, or words to that effect?
As for your other side of the coin comment...negative Ghostrider, I am one of the first to criticize improper or criminal behavior on the part of an officer. Why? Because it makes ALL officers look bad, and more importantly, there is no place for it in a community of men and women who have sworn an oath to serve. An officer has authority that MUST be used with care and discretion, otherwise the trust is broken between the law abiding community and the officers who serve them.
Jeronimo Yanez is an example, since this is one of the most current cases. I am the last one who will try in any way to excuse his actions the night he fatally shot Philando Castile. From everything I have read, this case is pretty clearly a case of negligent homicide. I have read about zero exculpatory evidence to suggest that the victim (yes, victim not suspect), Castile was actually going for his gun, and there is no corroborative evidence or testimony from the other officer on scene to support Yanez's claim of self defense. Do I think there was criminal intent on the part of Yanez? No I don't, so Murder Two is off the table, but Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide are definitely in play here and if he is found guilty by the triers of the facts, then he should face punishment to fit the charges.
The tragic shooting of Daniel Shaver in Mesa Arizona is another example of an officer who made a horribly bad call that cost a person their life. Mesa officer Philip Brailsford shot and killed Daniel Shaver in a hotel room in Mesa for allegedly "going for a gun". The problem is that Shaver was on his hands and knees, begging for officers NOT to shoot him, and he was in his underwear. Where he might have been concealing the gun he was allegedly going for is beyond me. The other officers on scene, who were also covering Shaver while the sergeant on scene was giving commands to the victim did not fire their weapons, or perceive a similar lethal threat which is very telling when multiple other officers did not fire in the same totality of circumstances. This was a tragic killing that should not have happened, and Brailsford should face the full weight and consequences of his actions, not a BS plea deal that takes jail time off the table. This boils down to an officer who was not in control of himself, his actions, or the situation in which he found himself, and a man who shouldn't have, died because of it and there is no excuse.
But...these are two officers out of 800 thousand sworn officers who go to work every day in the US. Even if you take every unjustified shooting, and I agree that they happen, and I agree that they shouldn't happen, and I further agree that the officers involved should be held to the highest level of accountability....the percentage is so infinitesimally small that painting all officers with the brush you use is wrong.
For every wrongful shooting whether it was criminal or negligent in nature you could possibly cite, dozens if not hundreds of incidences where officers could have justifiably used lethal force without question, but didn't could be cited. This is one reason why I think body cams are a GREAT idea, and should be mandatory in every department in the country. I wore one for the last six years I was on, and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is a dispassionate, accurate, and objective eye witness to every contact an officer has during their shift. My son works for a local agency and has worn a body cam (two in fact...one is issued by his department, and the other is one he purchased) since he graduated from the academy. He'd leave home without his gun before he'd leave without his body cam.
What did you say in the one about all cops should be in jail before they start their shift, or words to that effect?
I am at the point where I rarely even cite specific incidents of cop corruption and abuse. I think very nearly all of them belong behind bars, if for no other more specific reason than daily violations of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law. Show me a cop who hasn't violated the 1st, 2nd, 4th or 5th Amendments during their tour of duty (a shift if you prefer), and I'll show you either a retired cop or one who passed away for whatever reason before their tour began. The cop who shot Kinsey could/should get 10 years just on the basis of 18 U.S. Code 242, and could/should get more than that based on local/state laws where sentences could/should run consecutively. Prosecutors and judges who let this special treatment pass for LEOs should face the same penalties under 18 U.S. Code 242. The fact that none of them do face those penalties though, is proof that they're all on the same team, all in it together, and all law-breakers, and the system that fails to hold them to account is broken beyond repair. Kinsey's shooter is just one among millions of illegal and unconstitutional actions by government agents at all levels, from the cop on the beat to the prosecutors and judges to the DOJ to the Supreme Court that codifies rewriting the above-mentioned amendments by judicial fiat.
It's why I can say with confidence that Yanez will get off. The game is fixed, which really means it's broken beyond repair.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I've read all your holier than thou, sanctimonious, essays about LEO's and other people that you seem to have have a problem with and they all seem to have the same "problem". They're out there serving and covering your butt every hour of every day, not getting paid for what their actual societal contribution value is, and most aren't looking for affirmation from people like yourself.So it turns out I did say something "to that effect" in a thread about someone you said in the same post I'm clarifying my reply to now, "should face punishment to fit the charges." That was Yanez, the cold-blooded killer of Philando Castile who got off last week, just as I predicted he would.
Anyway, what I said about "nearly all" cops should be behind bars was in the thread about Castile/Yanez, and here it is in its entirety:
Now, in order for that post to be understood in context, 18 U.S. Code § 242 needs to be likewise understood in context, which happens to be something that I believe most cops routinely ignore, and routinely get away with ignoring because both prosecutors and judges protect them from having to pay attention to its mandates, which are, again, offered here in its entirety:
If a cop forces a contact on a subject under the color of the laws established in either the Fourth Amendment (probable cause) or Terry v. Ohio (reasonable articulable suspicion) when the subject is engaging in perfectly legal activity that cannot under any circumstances rise to the level of PC or RAS (for sake of brevity, we'll use only public photography or open carry as examples here), that cop falls under the auspices of 18 U.S. Code § 242. If the cop states that the subject is being detained in such a circumstance, he/she doubles his/her culpability under 18 U.S. Code § 242. If the cop cuffs them during the detention and the slightest of injuries ensues, his/her potential punishment goes from one year in jail to 10. If he arrests and forcibly removes the subject from the scene, that is kidnapping since the contact, detention and arrest are all based on no law having been broken that would justify any of it, and the potential sentence goes from 10 years to unlimited years, up to and including life, and if a subject is killed under such dubious circumstances, the potential sentence goes from unlimited years in prison to the death penalty.
Now, the subject does indeed have some responsibility to establish the nature of the interaction for themselves, the most basic of which is asking the cop, "Am I being detained?" If the cop answers, "Yes, you are being detained," it is incumbent upon the subject to demand to know upon what PC or RAS of a crime having been, about to be, or in the process of being committed is he/she basing the detention. If the cop says something to the effect of, "I don't know yet. That's what we're here trying to figure out," then he/she immediately falls under the auspices of 18 U.S. Code § 242 because his/her hunch that something suspicious is going on because the subject is photographing in public or open carrying doesn't rise to the level of PC or RAS in and of itself.
Show me a cop who hasn't stammered and stuttered at one incident or another when the basis for the Terry stop was demanded of them, and I'll show you a liar. Show me a prosecutor who seeks indictments against cops on a regular basis for such "mundane" violations of citizens' rights, and I'll show you a prosecutor who has an untenable relationship with the agencies he/she depends on to provide investigatory and evidence-gathering services from so both entities can do their jobs. In other words, finding a prosecutor who holds cops to the mandates of 18 U.S. Code § 242 would be like finding a unicorn in the wild. It doesn't happen, and because it doesn't happen, cops ignore the provisions and restrictions of 18 U.S. Code § 242 all the time. They are almost never held to account to violations of that code section personally either. The worst that's almost ever going to happen when it can be proven that rights were violated by cops, is that the jurisdiction they work for gets successfully sued by their victim(s), which means that if their victim(s) are taxpayers, then they themselves foot the bill for their own "award" in civil, not criminal, court.
If you want to discuss the above without taking it personal that I distrust cops for the reasons articulated therein, that's fine. It's not just cops that I have a problem with as regards the near-boycott-like lack of enforcement of 18 U.S. Code § 242. I'm pretty sure the above quote of mine is the only time I've ever said cops belong behind bars, but I've said many times that the system is set up such that it's impossible for cops to conduct themselves lawfully anymore, and I touched on it above regarding how the system puts alliances between LE agencies and prosecutors WAY above the protection and defense of citizens' rights, but it goes deeper than just that. I'd be glad to get into that too if you're inclined to understand how I could come to such a conclusion, but that's up to you. I don't hate you or any cop. I distrust that I will come out of a contact with them with my rights fully intact the way that I went into that contact. My personal way of avoiding that circumstance is to do everything I can to avoid being contacted in the first place, and being the law-abiding citizen I am, it ain't really all that hard. I do happen to open carry, but I don't happen to go to town very much at all, but when I do, I'd be lyin' if I said I wasn't on high alert for cops to harass me about it. Thankfully it hasn't happened to me since I've been OC'ing, but there are several well-known cases in this state where OC was the initial "suspicious activity" that escalated to arrests/charges/and even a couple of convictions that I'm aware of, of which one was overturned in the AL Supreme Court, but at a monumental cost to the man that he had to pay by begging for help from his fellow gun-rights proponents, and for which the cops, prosecutors and judges who violated his rights through four levels of courts and appeals, had to pay exactly zero. There's something wrong with that picture. If you disagree, tell me why. If you agree, tell me what should be done about it other than heaping criticism and distrust on the purveyors of the problem(s). Or, if you agree, but like the rest of us have very few answers to offer, just say OK, I get it, I understand, or umm.... you know.... something to that effect.
Blues
<....snip....>
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?