The Police Brutality Thread

[Pelado]

Would like some of CS's legal minds to weigh in on qualified immunity. My limited understanding is that it protects cops from frivolous civil lawsuits. Like an attorney suing an officer after being ticketed for speeding. In the greater Dallas area, there have been several high profile police shootings where officers made the wrong snap decision and are now in jail. One of them was a female officer who returned to her apartment after a very long shift obviously fatigued. She parked on the wrong floor of the parking garage and entered the wrong apartment (she lived directly above it). The door was unlocked and she thought someone had broken into her apartment. The African American in the apartment was also very surprised and disoriented. He was shot and killed by the officer who was found guilty of murder. In my view, it was a solid case for manslaughter but there was a great deal of pressure to find the officer guilty of murder. So I'm not sure qualified immunity protects policemen in these cases since I don't remember it being brought up as a defense. Anyway, that's why I would like the resident legal team to weigh in.

If she wasn't on duty, then I don't think qualified immunity would protect her.

[Northwestcoug]

Would any of you sign up to be cop knowing that you would be frequently put in dangerous situations and making the wrong snap decision could land you in jail for murder? Not me. I am not saying they should get blanket immunity, but to ignore the reality of their unique circumstances is crazy.

I'm not going to say this as eloquently as I'd like, but we need to redefine and decrease the amount of dangerous situations society is willing to put cops into. At this point, many stations have SWAT teams and are heavily weaponized. I'm willing to bet that most of these stations do not need this amount of army-like weaponry. As a society we have given passive acceptance to militarizing the police force, and they've rolled with it. As a result, they have put themselves in frequent danger, policing all sorts of laws that require more agressive police policies. Of course, letting those laws pass and fester is our society's fault, not the police force.

I don't doubt that cops are worried about a wrong judgement call. So let's do the heavy lifting now and decrease those situations that require them to make those snap, and potentially deadly, judgements. And let's quit making them into an army.

Yes... give those bad pigs the death penalty:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-officer-garrett-rolfe-murder-charges-death-penalty-eligible

That will bring up police reform!

This is as clear an instance of police misconduct as you'll ever see. At multiple times during this encounter the cops could have handled this situation differently, and Brooks would still be alive. I have no problem prosecuting the officer.

[Flystripper]

Would any of you sign up to be cop knowing that you would be frequently put in dangerous situations and making the wrong snap decision could land you in jail for murder? Not me. I am not saying they should get blanket immunity, but to ignore the reality of their unique circumstances is crazy.

yes it is a unique situation but many, many times lethal force is simply not justified. Too many times black men have been shot in the back while running away, or after they have been subdued, or when they clearly had no weapon. If a cop pulls that gun it better truly be a matter of life and death. Yes sometimes a cop isn't sure and it is extremely dangerous, but if you can't be sure before you pull a trigger you probably shouldn't be a cop.

My minimally informed solution is to reduce the amount of cops and pay them much, much more. This will attract a better people with the requisite skill set to limit these horrific tragedies. More cops isn't the answer. Better cops is the answer. Unions would never let this happen though.

[Northwestcoug]

We're not going to gain much traction defunding the police. But for heaven's sake, can we please defund the DEA?

The Drug Enforcement Administration laundered tens of millions of dollars in the course of drug trafficking investigations over the past decade without complying with laws governing such operations, according to a newly released review from the Justice Department’s in-house watchdog.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ndering-325723

[Flystripper]

We're not going to gain much traction defunding the police. But for heaven's sake, can we please defund the DEA?



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ndering-325723

I am down. Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not going to say this as eloquently as I'd like, but we need to redefine and decrease the amount of dangerous situations society is willing to put cops into. At this point, many stations have SWAT teams and are heavily weaponized. I'm willing to bet that most of these stations do not need this amount of army-like weaponry. As a society we have given passive acceptance to militarizing the police force, and they've rolled with it. As a result, they have put themselves in frequent danger, policing all sorts of laws that require more agressive police policies. Of course, letting those laws pass and fester is our society's fault, not the police force.

I don't doubt that cops are worried about a wrong judgement call. So let's do the heavy lifting now and decrease those situations that require them to make those snap, and potentially deadly, judgements. And let's quit making them into an army.

Sorry, I think this is naive. The vast majority of cops aren't entering encounters with "army-like weaponry".

Suppose you have a drunk angry husband beating his wife. Or a rape in progress. Or an armed robbery in progress. You have to intervene with force and that always puts a cop in danger.

[All-American]

Looks like a bunch of stupid people got together.

I thought we changed the name to CS to get rid of those clowns.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought we changed the name to CS to get rid of those clowns.

Nope. It was an act of revenge!

[SCcoug]

.

My minimally informed solution is to reduce the amount of cops and pay them much, much more. This will attract a better people with the requisite skill set to limit these horrific tragedies. More cops isn't the answer. Better cops is the answer. Unions would never let this happen though.

I'd think that a cop who knows no backup is coming would be more likely to err on the side of use deadly force.

[Eddie]

Sorry, I think this is naive. The vast majority of cops aren't entering encounters with "army-like weaponry".

Suppose you have a drunk angry husband beating his wife. Or a rape in progress. Or an armed robbery in progress. You have to intervene with force and that always puts a cop in danger.

That was my first question as well - how often are the people shot by police shot in a SWAT style encounter with military-type weapons, and how often is it more unexpected and unplanned?

I love the idea of an alternative response for mental health issues. I'm not sure we'll ever be in a place where all mental health issues can be addressed by non-police however. How many "crazy" people end up violent?

Don't get me wrong - I think there are things we can continue to do to fix issues of police brutality and violence. I also think that when dealing with human behavior, there are no guarantees. And no matter how much is done - nothing will fix the situation completely.

[Commando]

I'd think that a cop who knows no backup is coming would be more likely to err on the side of use deadly force.

I don't think I agree with this. That b*ch a** cop who killed the intoxicated man on his knees in the hall in the hotel in Mesa was surrounded by fellow cops and backup yet chose to murder that poor man anyway.

[Northwestcoug]

Sorry, I think this is naive. The vast majority of cops aren't entering encounters with "army-like weaponry".

Suppose you have a drunk angry husband beating his wife. Or a rape in progress. Or an armed robbery in progress. You have to intervene with force and that always puts a cop in danger.

Of those three, the last one is where I have no qualms with an armed cop making a snap judgement. With the first two, I would hope the criminal could be subdued safely without killing him.

I agree that the majority of encounters aren't happening with 'army-like weaponry', but a lot of abuse happens when it does. Like no-knock and drug raids. And I'm sure you agree that encounters like your examples are relatively rare in a cop's day to day job. Where we really need reform is the disasters that happen from routine police interactions like traffic stops.

[Paperback Writer]

That was my first question as well - how often are the people shot by police shot in a SWAT style encounter with military-type weapons, and how often is it more unexpected and unplanned?

It can happen. I served on a jury where a defendant greeted a SWAT team from his bed by shooting his .45. It didn't end well for him, although he survived.

[Eddie]

It can happen. I served on a jury where a defendant greeted a SWAT team from his bed by shooting his .45. It didn't end well for him, although he survived.

Oh - I know it happens. I just think it is the exception rather than the rule. I think most police shootings take place at a time when the police don't necessarily expect to be shooting, but then it escalates and it's too late for SWAT.

[Bo Diddley]

I've said it many times--you get what you pay for. When the economy goes down, you'll recruit more quality people who are willing to work for less money, but when the economy's humming along, they often then quit. Higher pay and just as important, more money for trainimg will go a long ways to fixing things.

We over incarcerate in this country and in many ways over police.