Police/public relationship in the U.S.

[Terry Oxandale]

I'm surprised our esteemed moderator (Keith) hasn't asked what thoughts are being formulated on his side of the pond as to the situation in St. Louis?

All my life I looked up to law enforcement as something that is to be respected...period. But as I grow older, and observe an apparent trend of more and more unnecessarily and inappropriately violent force being used by law enforcement personnel (is it better news reporting or is it actually getting worse), I wonder where we are headed. Granted, watching police behave badly on the news does not represent the profession, but when it becomes more and more common (we see local incidents here that never make the national news), one must assume there is a problem brewing, and it cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the public (Joe citizen behaving badly). I've observed first-hand the double standard that law enforce uses so conveniently. Having a human being with a badge and gun (authority and armament), depending too heavily on the "I felt threatened" backstop as an easy alternative to a more challenging non-violent response, is troubling, especially when they are judged to an apparently different standard than if Joe Public I did the exact same thing (e.g. beating woman on the side of the road, shooting at a van with children inside, choking a single (albeit very large) individual to death with at least three officers present, is just the most recent examples). It is almost as if their actions are not based on human error, but instead on the knowledge that they need not be criminally accountable for their actions from a public point of view. Prosecutors or police officers that withhold evidence or perjure themselves for a conviction, being immune from full accountability is even worse. I fear for myself if the time ever comes if I am treated inappropriately or unfairly by the police, because I'm not sure I'll simply say "yes sir" knowing that their "might makes right" attitude may not be inappropriate to the situation.

 

[Doc Kaler]

All too often, across the country, officers have killed family pets because they "feel threatened". You can Google pages of incidents. We have a friend who's working Australian Shepherd cow dog was shot in the back of the head and witnessed by the owner while in the field - because the officer felt "threatened". At least in this case, the public rallied and the officer was fired (Google Justice for Candy Middleton). It is a behavior trait among a few officers that needs to be identified a priori, before it can escalate into tragedies seen on TV.

 

[Pat]

In this situation perhaps it's best to prudently wait for the facts to come out.

 

[Doug S.]

Terry, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I live near Houston, TX, and I am aghast at the prevalence of police brutality that seems to be endorsed by the departmental leadership. Every time we hear of inordinate force used by the police, a police spokesperson is seen on TV claiming the officer was "...in fear for his life..." as justification for the actions. IMHO, it is the general population who should be "...in fear for our lives..." any time the police department is involved.

Police departments are, with VERY FEW exceptions, equipped with assault type weapons to which the general public may not have access. Additionally, their actions are becoming much more military in nature. I believe their FIRST choice for resolution is to attempt to remove the party who is the subject of their activity with deadly force if possible...and then absolve themselves of responsibility for use of unnecessarily lethal force by saying that they were "...in fear for their lives..." Yet, when we, the general public attempt to claim the same rationale for acts which may be lethal (George Zimmerman comes to mind) there is outrage from law enforcement and attempts to prosecute. What's wrong with allowing the general population to be "...in fear for our lives..." as well? Is this a circumstance that is reserved only for law enforcement? Or is this a justification that has been invented and promulgated by law enforcement to absolve them of exercising the same restraint that any prudent individual should be expected to exercise?

I, too, believe that my life may be endangered by over-zealous/vigorous efforts by law enforcement. If a law enforcement officer draws his weapon and points it at me, am I not allowed to be in fear? The constitution ensures me the rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Should I not be allowed to defend myself against all efforts or attempts to deprive me of my life? Apparently not....police seem to be allowed to murder citizens at will and yet if anyone attempts to question a law enforcement officer they better be ready to be verbally, if not physically, abused. It has happened to me and to my family.

We thought we had it bad back in the 70's...who could have predicted the way things have progressed?

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

The "facts" won't matter anyway. Both sides will see it the way they want to see it regardless...just like they always have (witness the "O.J." trial).

But, I did see a t.v. news report wherein two supposed eye witnesses were interviewed separately who both said (independent of each other) that they actually saw the shooting 'go down' and all that led up to it...and if what those two people reported actually happened (there stories were identical) - the LEO who shot that 20-yr-old should at the very least be sent to the 'big house' for life.

That said, in the past, people like Tawana Brawley and Crystal Gail Mangum have claimed a 'lotta' things too...and wrecked other people's lives in the process. So, Pat's admonishment is spot on IMHO.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Yeah, but Tawana put the Reverend Al Sharpton in business, so we have her to thank for that.

I think the situation in St Louis County is appalling. I work in an area where the police are under Federal supervision because of exactly that kind of kneejerk brutality. ER doctors generally have a good relationship with police, but most of the people in the world aren't ER doctors, and they have good reason to be afraid.

 

[Keith]

Sorry guys, whatever "St Louis" refers to it's not been reported here, so, a link perhaps?

 

[Larry L.]

'Actually happened outside St. Louis:

Timeline: Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Mo.

 

[PeteB]

Just one of many examples of the police thinking they are above the law is the fact that these stickers exist:

"Thin Blue Line" = I'm a cop or relative of a cop, so don't pull me over no matter how fast I'm going/recklessly driving/drunk, etc.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Well from reading the reports it seems to me that this has become a racial conflict rather than people seeking justice for a wrong doing by the cops.
If the reports are true that the guy who was shot tried to grab the police gun then he put his own life on the line.
When people start rioting and looting I have no sympathy.

 

[Larry L.]

Well from reading the reports it seems to me that this has become a racial conflict rather than people seeking justice for a wrong doing by the cops.

'Zackly...and provides an e-x-c-u-s-e to riot and loot. Anytime there's a sensational white-on-black crime in the U.S. (and I'm assuming here that the LEO was white) that's what happens.

If the reports are true that the guy who was shot tried to grab the police gun then he put his own life on the line.

Again - that's according to reports. I'd remind you that "reports" also told us we could "keep our doctors", etc. As I mentioned before, 2 supposed eye witnesses tell a different story. (I really ought to find those interviews and post 'em here.)

I'd like to believe that a "Justice Department" investigation could be TRUSTED to discover and report the whole truth...but, Attny. Gen. Holder and his crew have demonstrated an anti-white bias and a disregard for the law and the truth that's been on display more than once. So, I'm not holding my breath on this one...

 

[Doug S.]

Well from reading the reports it seems to me that this has become a racial conflict rather than people seeking justice for a wrong doing by the cops.

Pete, there WILL BE those here in the US who will always attempt to stir the pot and anger one race or the other...because of the manner in which our distant forefathers brought slaves to the U.S. Apparently decades, perhaps more than a century of attempts to resolve those old feelings is not enough.

I know for me the issue of race is not important...if a cop decides to abuse his authority the color of his skin is not the issue, the abuse of power is. The focus of this thread is just that...cops gone wild, so to speak. Don't let those who would like to turn it into a racial issue distract you from that fact. Doesn't matter if the dead young man was white, black, brown or purple, nor does the color of the cop's skin matter. IMHO we as a society should focus on this issue more than we do...the decision of one renegade cop to end the incident by killing someone has more impact on the loss of our personal liberties than whatever we believe our pol's are doing wrong...

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Keith]

By strange coincidence, this was an item on our Newsnight program this evening although I missed a lot of it. Obviously, this is not an isolated incident and there is history of bad relations between Police and citizens, which is most likely of a racial nature as Pete says.

To me, there's no point in commenting on the actual event. A young man is dead and there is resulting conflict, rioting and looting. I find the looting aspect, far from making a point, very harmful to the case of those who feel they have been wronged, and only serves to help destroy their own communities.

However, one thing did resonate with me, and that is the continued escalation of the militarisation of the police. Many of the images of 'law enforcement officers' I saw on the news item were not police, they were para-militaries.

Such a phenomena is also happening in the UK albeit on a much less grand scale, but the paradigm shift in philosophy is fairly apparent, with a significant loss of citizen trust being the initial response to a combat suited flak jacket wearing 'officer of the law.' That this is being carried out in response to a perceived terrorist threat is the obvious excuse, but in my view, it sets a dangerous precedent for citizen/police relations and sets us on the path towards a totalitarian state.

I'm not sure if any of the UK members here are aware, that the Scots Police Force, now routinely deploy armed officers on normal duties. That us to say, that the number of trained firearm officers who would keep weapons in locked containers in their cars, are now to be found patrolling and dealing with everyday incidents actually carrying their weapons when the situations do not demand it, such as routine traffic stops, pub chucking out time and domestics, even in small villages. As we have come to know, Scotland has often pressed ahead with revolutionary social change, only to back track some years later, as the experiment failed. Sweeping changes and liberalisation of the licensing laws was another of their pet projects that failed dismally. The problem with this is that England and rUK generally follows their lead and end up getting stuck with their failed social experiments.

Many prominent Scots are appalled by this and the decision to use armed officers on every day duty did not come about as a result of any consultation with elected officials, and this is the worrying aspect.

If no one objects, and they (police) play the terrorist card in response, I am very much afraid that the citizens of the UK will wake up one morning to find their 'Police' toting machine guns. Protect and Serve?

That is what I see in the Michael Brown incident....

 

[Larry L.]

...and you wonder why so many ordinary Yankee citizens take threats to their Second Amendment gun rights so seriously and why so many of them insist on exercising their right to 'carry'.

One of the 'arguments' we hear the anti-gun tribe over here use is something like, "You pro-gunners are all paranoid. What's the big deal if police are the only ones allowed to carry? 'You think they're going be a threat to you? Do you think the govt poses an armed threat to you?" Might you yourself have an answer for them on that one now, Keith?

The Founders' main reason for adding the Second Amendment was the fact they could foresee the possibility that the people may one day NEED "arms" to defend themselves against a tyrantical govt. Today's ANTI-gunners have historically pooh-poohed that reasoning as being just a reflection of the mindset applicable 'back then' given the very recent historical events of that time (1770s), and they insist that in today's world such thinking is totally 'bogus'.

Just look at how/why you came to your own conclusions based on your own, present day observations, Keith. 'Twould appear that today's world is providing evidence of just how right The Founders may have been, 'innit'.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Doug, no argument with what you said, but if the kid shot was white do you think there would have been rioting and looting? I personally think not. Again INMHO I think it's about time the coloured population got over the slave thing and started thanking those Americans and British who fought for their freedom.
Keith every law officer in Australia carries a gun. And we also have our Para Military SWAT teams. Which is why I agree with Larry that Americans should fight to protect their second amendment. As you know guns are banned in Oz. That worries me for three reasons.
1. The bad guys still have their guns and know normal citizens are unarmed. 2. Our primarily Muslim neighbours to the north who look upon Australia with envy know we are unarmed and could not mount a guerrilla resistance if they invaded.
And 3. We the citizens have no defense against any Government which decides to abandon the democratic process.....
Am I Paranoid or a student of history?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I'm surprised our esteemed moderator (Keith) hasn't asked what thoughts are being formulated on his side of the pond as to the situation in St. Louis?

All my life I looked up to law enforcement as something that is to be respected...period. But as I grow older, and observe an apparent trend of more and more unnecessarily and inappropriately violent force being used by law enforcement personnel (is it better news reporting or is it actually getting worse), I wonder where we are headed. Granted, watching police behave badly on the news does not represent the profession, but when it becomes more and more common (we see local incidents here that never make the national news), one must assume there is a problem brewing, and it cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the public (Joe citizen behaving badly). I've observed first-hand the double standard that law enforce uses so conveniently. Having a human being with a badge and gun (authority and armament), depending too heavily on the "I felt threatened" backstop as an easy alternative to a more challenging non-violent response, is troubling, especially when they are judged to an apparently different standard than if Joe Public I did the exact same thing (e.g. beating woman on the side of the road, shooting at a van with children inside, choking a single (albeit very large) individual to death with at least three officers present, is just the most recent examples). It is almost as if their actions are not based on human error, but instead on the knowledge that they need not be criminally accountable for their actions from a public point of view. Prosecutors or police officers that withhold evidence or perjure themselves for a conviction, being immune from full accountability is even worse. I fear for myself if the time ever comes if I am treated inappropriately or unfairly by the police, because I'm not sure I'll simply say "yes sir" knowing that their "might makes right" attitude may not be inappropriate to the situation.

I think if cctv ,car cams and the internet were around in the sixties you would probably be thinking how much better everything is these days. Everything including what used to be local news that nobody outside of a small town would ever have known about can be sensationalised and spread across the world in seconds. Add in the shock element and its all a media dream really. Not that it makes it right.

Bob

 

[Larry L.]

I think if cctv ,car cams and the internet were around in the sixties you would probably be thinking how much better everything is these days.

The police didn't have armored personnel carriers, SWAT teams (SWAT teams responding to every other incident called in either), military-style riot gear, semi-auto "assault rifles", etc., etc., back in the '60s though, did they. They have all that stuff now because things aren't "better" these days. Not by a darned sight.

Just one example: How many U.S. cities are virtually ruled by street gangs today vs. back in the '60s?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

The police didn't have armored personnel carriers, SWAT teams (SWAT teams responding to every other incident called in), military-style riot gear, semi-auto "assault rifles", etc., etc., back in the '60s though, did they. They have all that stuff now because things aren't "better" these days. Not by a darned sight.

Just one example: How many U.S. cities are virtually ruled by street gangs today vs. back in the '60s?

The mob took care of the gangs back then Larry . Does that make it better?

Bob

 

[Keith]

Doug, no argument with what you said, but if the kid shot was white do you think there would have been rioting and looting? I personally think not. Again INMHO I think it's about time the coloured population got over the slave thing and started thanking those Americans and British who fought for their freedom.
Keith every law officer in Australia carries a gun. And we also have our Para Military SWAT teams. Which is why I agree with Larry that Americans should fight to protect their second amendment. As you know guns are banned in Oz. That worries me for three reasons.
1. The bad guys still have their guns and know normal citizens are unarmed. 2. Our primarily Muslim neighbours to the north who look upon Australia with envy know we are unarmed and could not mount a guerrilla resistance if they invaded.
And 3. We the citizens have no defense against any Government which decides to abandon the democratic process.....
Am I Paranoid or a student of history?

Paranoid Pete. It's got a ring to it! :laugh:

Larry cannot see how keeping the citizens armed is going to counter a determined, well armed and well trained para military force (that's not to say you have to give up your Lugers if they give you a crumb of comfort), It's a modern pipe dream - you'll just end up getting killed quicker. Don't forget, you also have your National Guard and Regular Army units. No guessing which side of the fence they would come down on, and they have all the best hardware. (Oh, and all the lead bullets too).

I believe the 'White Caucasian' Citizen Defence League is doomed to be out numbered from day 1, so, best to seek a political (and potentially non deadly) solution now. Start the process now. Insist on the principle that Police Forces are to serve the citizens. ALL citizens, and apprehend the wrongdoer, not March around in para military gear with machine guns applying 'justice' arbitrarily to anyone that doesn't 'fit' and don't tell me it doesn't happen - a lot. But you won't. You'll climb back into your stockade and reprise Gun Weekly fooling yourself that you're going to Save America until they batter your door down with a tank.

Now, this all sounds a little outlandish and of course, it'll never happen..:shifty:

Well, you did ask

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, no argument with what you said, but if the kid shot was white do you think there would have been rioting and looting? I personally think not. Again INMHO I think it's about time the coloured population got over the slave thing and started thanking those Americans and British who fought for their freedom.

I agree, Pete...the past (the slave thing) SHOULD NOT be used as a red herring, something you drag up from the past every time an issue of inequality is discussed. Rioting seems to be the "response of choice" for some racial groups...whether it is a chance to get free stuff via the looting or a sincere belief that violent insurrection is the only avenue to bring attention to the issue and effect change is unclear to me, but in my mind I favor the free stuff issue. We don't SEEM to see rioting as a response from the white population, nor really from the latino population, at least to my knowledge.

As you know guns are banned in Oz. That worries me for three reasons.
1. The bad guys still have their guns and know normal citizens are unarmed. 2. Our primarily Muslim neighbours to the north who look upon Australia with envy know we are unarmed and could not mount a guerrilla resistance if they invaded.
And 3. We the citizens have no defense against any Government which decides to abandon the democratic process.....
Am I Paranoid or a student of history?

It's not paranoia if they REALLY ARE out to get you, Pete...that's the $64,000 question (an old TV game show in the U.S....the biggest prize at that time was $64,000.)...are those things about which you're worried really going to come about (i.e.--are they REALLY out to get you)? Psychological research shows that about 96% of what we worry about never really happens...we spend an awful lot of time worrying!

Cheers!

Doug