And they try so hard to get a flattering picture of the former and a scary picture for the latter.
Geralsays
Is there any sort of review process when a cop killed a civilian? Is there action by the courts and department to determine if the action was justified? I have heard many calls about prosecuting the cop but surely there must be some type of automatic review procedure (this case or others) to determine if the killing should have been avoided, then punishment brought upon the offending officer if they could have avoided it.
I am held responsible when I screw up at work. Doctors are sued or lose their license when they screw up at work. Surely there’s something for the police when they screw up too.
Alverantsays
@Geral, there is but the cops are dragging their feet, trying to demonize the victim, and withholding evidence from the public. It gives the impression of a cover-up and a desperate attempt to blame the kid instead of arresting the officer.
whiskytangofoxtrotsays
For the first example, the media would probably discover that the shooter had played a video game at some point in her life and put the blame on that.
Becca Stareyessays
I hate all of this, especially the implication that if Mike Brown wasn’t a 100% angel all the time*, he deserved to be shot multiple times by a cop while unarmed.
* Which is a state even a pretty virtuous teenager can’t achieve.
I hate the stench of the Just World Hypothesis and how it deflects blame. Police shouldn’t be shooting unarmed people. Period.
twas brillig (stevem)says
from Daily Kos (re the news case in particular):
“The officer himself could complete it [i.e. the incident report] and give it to the supervisor for his approval,” the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. “I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.”
I read, “put it in the case file” as mumble-jumble for “put it in the ‘circular file’ [the trash can].”
In summary, incidents of violence by police officers (in Fergusen, MO) were only written of, by the officer involved, and then filed completely separate from any personnel file about the officer. This was changed in 2010 with the new Commissioner, but can easily account for this guy’s “clean record”.
Whatever happened to the mainstream media trope of Department of Internal Affairs, that would always keep an eye on even the slightest mistakes by the officers and then string them up on technical issues (and police bullets overwhelmingly investigated)? Is that just a fantasy?
.
[remind me to avoid MO, next time I drive cross the country]
Menyambalsays
Fourth comment down on an alleged funny picture site that posted a snarky Ferguson pic:
funny, we’ve all seen World Star Hip Hop but somehow everytime a black kid is shot, he’s a fuking saint. Gimme a break
So yeah, the funny picture above is not funny at all. Just accurate. Sadly.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
I read, “put it in the case file” as mumble-jumble for “put it in the ‘circular file’ [the trash can].”
No, it means put it in the arrest/complaint file. Officer’s use of force is only recorded by defendant/arrestee, not by officer, and you wouldn’t even know that defendant/arrestee had force used against them unless you looked in the file. So it wasn’t thrown away, but it was organized in a manner that guaranteed that there could be no way to establish a pattern of bad behavior on the part of any cop.
I mean, I’m sure that was just an accidental byproduct of their otherwise wonderful system.
I mean, I’m sure that was just an accidental byproduct of their otherwise wonderful system.
Well, it’s gotta be just an accident. I mean it’s not like we have relational databases or even fucking photocopiers that could make it easy to create cross referencing systems.
Ivansays
I don’t get it, why is the emphasis on whether the killed person was armed or not?
a) an American citizen has the right (so I guess) to bear arms. Therefore, having a firearm is not a reason to be shot by police.
b) if a person attacks a policeman, the latter can’t be expected to check if the assailant has any weapons, he has the right and duty to stop him. Best by non-lethal methods, but sometimes this is impossible.
So, the only question that should be asked is whether the victim attacked the policeman, and not whether he had a knife, gun or grenade. Looks like he didn’t and was shot while trying to escape, which seems to be unjustified. Using invalid arguments, however, undermines your point.
Ichthyicsays
a) it is if you are defending yourself against someone who is USING the weapon against you
b) the police officer is given many means to defend himself against attack in cases where weapons are not being used against him, as in this case.
So, the only question that should be asked is whether the victim attacked the policeman,
fail.
yes, it’s clear you don’t get it, but it’s not because it’s complicated. It’s because you’re either:
a) dense, or
b) entirely ignorant
Ivansays
@17
a) dense, or
b) entirely ignorant
Or both, let’s not forget this option. But it seems to me that you missed my point: I’m saying that arguments like “OMG, they killed an unarmed guy” are invalid because killing an armed person is no more legal. Now, what on earth does your phrase “it is if you are defending yourself…” mean? Either you have a gun on you or you don’t. Using it is a different thing, in this case intention does matter.
As for non-lethal defence, it’s clearly the duty of an officer to use it as long as he can. But if he is attacked, even by an unarmed person, using gun is justified, if only because a fistfight is a risky affair and the criminal may get hold of officer’s weapon.
Saadsays
Ivan #16
It’s not necessary to include the unarmed part, but I think it certainly strengthens the point being made.
Ichthyicsays
As for non-lethal defence, it’s clearly the duty of an officer to use it as long as he can
no FUCKING GO BACK AND APPLY THAT TO THIS SITUATION
you’re so full of ignorance about what you are talking about it smells like sewer backed up.
antepreprosays
“You gotta use your gun on unarmed people, because it might be really dangerous if that unarmed person got ahold of your gun!”
God damn, we have managed to squeeze the circular logic defense of GUNZZZZ into this discussion now. Fan fucking tastic.
antepreprosays
The “it doesn’t matter if he was unarmed” illogic reminds me of the “knives are dangerous too” handwringing nonsense that gun fetishists will use to defend complete non-regulation of guns. Apparently everything is just as dangerous as everything else. A teenager unarmed. A teenager wielding Skittles. Someone wielding a knife. Soemone wielding a handgun. Someone wielding a machine gun. Someone wielding a tactical nuke. All the same, an attack is an attack, nuke whosoever would DARE to attempt punching you. There is no such thing as escalation, no such thing as excessive force, no such thing as overreacting, no such thing as weapons that are more lethal than others. Nope. Someone slaps you and you are permitted by Internet Law to kill them on the spot. Because that slap might have killed you, for sure, definitely, mmm hmmm, true facts.
Ichthyicsays
The “it doesn’t matter if he was unarmed” illogic reminds me of the “knives are dangerous too” handwringing nonsense
yup, similar thought processes that lead to similar conclusions.
Someone slaps you and you are permitted by Internet Law to kill them on the spot. Because that slap might have killed you, for sure, definitely, mmm hmmm, true facts.
An armed society is a polite society ruled by those with the fastest draw.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays
@Daz:
An armed society is a society in which deferring to those with the fastest draw is polite! And everyone is scrupulous about being polite.
And they try so hard to get a flattering picture of the former and a scary picture for the latter.
Is there any sort of review process when a cop killed a civilian? Is there action by the courts and department to determine if the action was justified? I have heard many calls about prosecuting the cop but surely there must be some type of automatic review procedure (this case or others) to determine if the killing should have been avoided, then punishment brought upon the offending officer if they could have avoided it.
I am held responsible when I screw up at work. Doctors are sued or lose their license when they screw up at work. Surely there’s something for the police when they screw up too.
@Geral, there is but the cops are dragging their feet, trying to demonize the victim, and withholding evidence from the public. It gives the impression of a cover-up and a desperate attempt to blame the kid instead of arresting the officer.
For the first example, the media would probably discover that the shooter had played a video game at some point in her life and put the blame on that.
I hate all of this, especially the implication that if Mike Brown wasn’t a 100% angel all the time*, he deserved to be shot multiple times by a cop while unarmed.
* Which is a state even a pretty virtuous teenager can’t achieve.
News still being curated here.
#NotAllSomething!!!
I hate the stench of the Just World Hypothesis and how it deflects blame. Police shouldn’t be shooting unarmed people. Period.
from Daily Kos (re the news case in particular):
I read, “put it in the case file” as mumble-jumble for “put it in the ‘circular file’ [the trash can].”
In summary, incidents of violence by police officers (in Fergusen, MO) were only written of, by the officer involved, and then filed completely separate from any personnel file about the officer. This was changed in 2010 with the new Commissioner, but can easily account for this guy’s “clean record”.
Whatever happened to the mainstream media trope of Department of Internal Affairs, that would always keep an eye on even the slightest mistakes by the officers and then string them up on technical issues (and police bullets overwhelmingly investigated)? Is that just a fantasy?
.
[remind me to avoid MO, next time I drive cross the country]
Fourth comment down on an alleged funny picture site that posted a snarky Ferguson pic:
So yeah, the funny picture above is not funny at all. Just accurate. Sadly.
I have no plans on ever stepping foot in that state again. Saw too many of my family on FB echoing the pro-police narrative.
KKK Raising ‘Reward’ Money for Cop Who Killed ‘Low-IQ Jewish-Controlled Negro’ Michael Brow
Do you think he’ll take it?
No, it means put it in the arrest/complaint file. Officer’s use of force is only recorded by defendant/arrestee, not by officer, and you wouldn’t even know that defendant/arrestee had force used against them unless you looked in the file. So it wasn’t thrown away, but it was organized in a manner that guaranteed that there could be no way to establish a pattern of bad behavior on the part of any cop.
I mean, I’m sure that was just an accidental byproduct of their otherwise wonderful system.
Another relevant comic from him:
https://medium.com/matt-bors/b9ffb7f07e56
Crip Dyke wrote:
Well, it’s gotta be just an accident. I mean it’s not like we have relational databases or even fucking photocopiers that could make it easy to create cross referencing systems.
I don’t get it, why is the emphasis on whether the killed person was armed or not?
a) an American citizen has the right (so I guess) to bear arms. Therefore, having a firearm is not a reason to be shot by police.
b) if a person attacks a policeman, the latter can’t be expected to check if the assailant has any weapons, he has the right and duty to stop him. Best by non-lethal methods, but sometimes this is impossible.
So, the only question that should be asked is whether the victim attacked the policeman, and not whether he had a knife, gun or grenade. Looks like he didn’t and was shot while trying to escape, which seems to be unjustified. Using invalid arguments, however, undermines your point.
a) it is if you are defending yourself against someone who is USING the weapon against you
b) the police officer is given many means to defend himself against attack in cases where weapons are not being used against him, as in this case.
fail.
yes, it’s clear you don’t get it, but it’s not because it’s complicated. It’s because you’re either:
a) dense, or
b) entirely ignorant
@17
Or both, let’s not forget this option. But it seems to me that you missed my point: I’m saying that arguments like “OMG, they killed an unarmed guy” are invalid because killing an armed person is no more legal. Now, what on earth does your phrase “it is if you are defending yourself…” mean? Either you have a gun on you or you don’t. Using it is a different thing, in this case intention does matter.
As for non-lethal defence, it’s clearly the duty of an officer to use it as long as he can. But if he is attacked, even by an unarmed person, using gun is justified, if only because a fistfight is a risky affair and the criminal may get hold of officer’s weapon.
Ivan #16
It’s not necessary to include the unarmed part, but I think it certainly strengthens the point being made.
no FUCKING GO BACK AND APPLY THAT TO THIS SITUATION
you’re so full of ignorance about what you are talking about it smells like sewer backed up.
“You gotta use your gun on unarmed people, because it might be really dangerous if that unarmed person got ahold of your gun!”
God damn, we have managed to squeeze the circular logic defense of GUNZZZZ into this discussion now. Fan fucking tastic.
The “it doesn’t matter if he was unarmed” illogic reminds me of the “knives are dangerous too” handwringing nonsense that gun fetishists will use to defend complete non-regulation of guns. Apparently everything is just as dangerous as everything else. A teenager unarmed. A teenager wielding Skittles. Someone wielding a knife. Soemone wielding a handgun. Someone wielding a machine gun. Someone wielding a tactical nuke. All the same, an attack is an attack, nuke whosoever would DARE to attempt punching you. There is no such thing as escalation, no such thing as excessive force, no such thing as overreacting, no such thing as weapons that are more lethal than others. Nope. Someone slaps you and you are permitted by Internet Law to kill them on the spot. Because that slap might have killed you, for sure, definitely, mmm hmmm, true facts.
yup, similar thought processes that lead to similar conclusions.
I prefer these:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOHbM4GGWADc5bZgvbivvttAuWGow6h05
An armed society is a
politesociety ruled by those with the fastest draw.@Daz:
An armed society is a society in which deferring to those with the fastest draw is polite! And everyone is scrupulous about being polite.