The United Police States of America

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
rubato
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by rubato »

Single parents aren't allowed to take showers? I realize that in this case he is not a single parent, but the point remains.




yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I'm not sure this one belongs in a thread about the abuse of police power, bsg. Accidents while parenting are common to all forms of employment and home life.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18914
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by BoSoxGal »

The dog has a kennel. The cop lets the dog OUT of the kennel, then goes to shower leaving his 4 year old unattended. Boys like to play with dogs. This was a totally avoidable tragedy! Put the dog back in the kennel before showering and leaving a 4 year old child unattended. Anybody who has a basic understanding of child development knows that a child of that age/size can open pretty much any door (unless a special lock was installed and engaged). Maybe he's just that little observant of his own kid's developmental growth?



I never understand why tragedies involving the mauling and/or death of children always result in so many 'parenting accidents happen' comments from people. Most of these so-called 'accidents' are actually negligence of the most egregious kind - leaving kids with access to dangerous dogs, firearms, poisons, etc. Situations that common sense would dictate should be proactively prevented, and which means to prevent are readily and easily available.

I don't give parents lacking common sense who end up killing their sentient, thinking, suffering children a break, sorry. He should be criminally prosecuted for felony child endangerment - but he won't be, because he's a cop. If he was a black guy in rural America, or even big city America, I bet he'd be criminally prosecuted for this criminal negligence. :arg
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

They are called "accidents" [an unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm]; [anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance]; [any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause] because they are. Many accidents are the result of negligence.

Near Antonyms of accident: intent, intention, purpose; design, outline, plan, scheme
Negligence is not intended, purposed, planned, designed or schemed. Hence, "accident".

To call this tragic event "an accident of parenting" is a statement of fact unless evidence shows the man did it on purpose (or that he is not the child's parent, of course). Had it involved a vehicle it might have been an accident of driving.

The victim's age has nothing to do with whether or not this event was an accident. Whether or not it is negligence on the parent's part is for others to judge - not me. While my primary sympathy is with the child, I imagine the father is torturing himself mentally for his responsibility in the tragedy. And perhaps his wife will blame him too.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18914
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by BoSoxGal »

Abusing police power is negligence as well, Meade.

Yes your bit about whats a synonym antonym etc. is well taken, but I think you know that I was getting at the tendency to say 'accident' without also saying 'likely negligence', as you did in describing this incident.

And then I advised you as to my opinion on the evidence available as to the likely criminal negligence at issue. [eta: Except that the cop is white and the dog is a specially trained police dog, so this will likely get swept under the rug and not prosecuted, as it likely would be if a poor black father was involved. That's abuse of power in law enforcement, which is about being a police state.]

So I think there is a relation to the overall theme of the thread.

Cops who can't exercise good judgment with regard to the most precious of their own possessions are likely not to exercise it with things that matter much less . . . like brown people.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14422
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Joe Guy »

I agree that the cop was negligent but how do you punish any parent for something like this? It would be quite different if the act was intentional. There is no punishment harsh enough for that.

Which, btw, leads us to another discussion for different thread. I think that might be Meade's point.

rubato
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by rubato »

I think any argument about negligence has to do with the dogs behavioral history. Which is not well described here.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Gob »

Washington: A white police officer in North Charleston, South Carolina, has been charged with murder after a video surfaced showing him fatally shooting an apparently unarmed black man in the back while he ran away.



The officer, Michael Slager, 33, had said he feared for his life because the man took his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man - Walter Scott, 50 - fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference on Tuesday evening.

The shooting comes on the heels of high-profile incidents of police officers using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere around the country. The deaths have sparked a national debate over whether police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.

The shooting unfolded after Slager stopped the driver of a Mercedes-Benz with a broken taillight, according to police reports. Scott ran away, and Slager chased him into a grassy lot that abuts a muffler shop. The officer fired his Taser, an electronic stun gun, but it did not stop Scott, according to police reports.

Moments after the struggle, Slager reported on his radio, "Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser," according to police reports.

But the video, which was taken by a bystander and provided to The New York Times, presents a different account. The video begins in the vacant lot, apparently moments after Slager fired his Taser. Wires, which carry the electrical current from the stun gun, appear to be extending from Scott's body as the two men tussle and Scott turns to run.

Something - it is not clear whether it is the stun gun - is either tossed or knocked to the ground behind the two men and Slager draws his gun, the video shows. When the officer fires, Scott appears to be 15 to 20 feet away and fleeing. He falls after the last of eight shots.

The officer then runs back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picks something off the ground. Moments later, he drops an object near Scott's body, the video shows.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the state's criminal investigative body, has begun an inquiry the shooting. The FBI and the Justice Department, which has opened a string of civil rights investigations into police departments under Holder, are also investigating.

The Supreme Court has held that an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that he "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

rubato
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by rubato »

If there weren't a video the grand jury (under 'guidance' by the prosecutor) would refuse to indict.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

It's certainly possible that (absent evidence) a prosecutor might decline to prosecute and/or a grand jury would not issue an indictment. Since in this case there is evidence, what's your point?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18914
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by BoSoxGal »

WHAT'S THE POINT????????????????????


The point is a citizen guilty of nothing other than a broken taillight and being afraid of going to jail for unpaid child support was gunned down in COLD FUCKING BLOOD by a law enforcement officer who then planted evidence and fabricated his report from whole cloth after MURDERING a citizen he was sworn to protect and serve. If the video didn't exist, he would have gotten away with it, apparently with his fellow officer(s) complicit in the act.

Thank GOD for the man with the smartphone!


If you don't realize that this is going on in this country on a regular basis, your head is someplace dark and muffled. Look at all the police brutality cases where there isn't video and the system covers up for LEOs; consider all the cases that never even get reported as excessive use of force, because something like this happened wherein the brutalizers/murderers got to write the whole script.


I don't have TV, so I don't even know what kind of coverage this is getting. As much as Ferguson and Zimmerman? It should!!!! If America turns its head and looks the other way on a case this clear cut, then we might as well throw away the Bill of Rights.


I'm sorry I ever worked for the State; I only hope I can make it up in the remainder of my career as an advocate. While I never abused my prosecutorial authority, I came to realize in my last two years as a prosecutor that I just couldn't trust most police. I will remain steadfast in that conviction for the rest of my life.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

The point is a citizen guilty of nothing other than a broken taillight and being afraid of going to jail for unpaid child support was gunned down in COLD FUCKING BLOOD by a law enforcement officer who then planted evidence and fabricated his report from whole cloth after MURDERING a citizen he was sworn to protect and serve
Obviously, that's partly true and the true parts are what the video establishes. He is rightly charged with murder and the verdict will surely be "guilty as charged".

As I wrote.....without EVIDENCE, the prosecutor may have DECIDED not to proceed and even if he/she had, THE grand jury MAY have decided not TO indict.

There seems to be a complaint FROM rubato that grand juRIEs and prosecutors should not BE concerned about EVIDENCE.

If there was no video then my uncle might be my aunt
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Lord Jim »

It's certainly true that without the video, there would never have been charges brought this quickly, but the idea that charges would not have been brought at all is highly unlikely...

Here's what we know of Slager's version of what happened, from what he said over the police radio, and through his original attorney:
Slager told other officers through his radio that he had gotten into a foot chase, according to the report. The police have not given details about the confrontation that followed behind the Mega Pawn shop at 5654 Rivers Ave.

But with other officers on the way to help, Slager announced on his radio that he had “deployed” his Taser, according to the report. But it didn’t work.

The statement from Slager’s attorney, though, did not say that Slager actually fired the device. Aylor said he could not offer further clarification until the officer talks with investigators.

“When confronted, Officer Slager reached for his Taser — as trained by the department — and then a struggle ensued,” Aylor said. “The driver tried to overpower Officer Slager in an effort to take his Taser.”

Seconds later, the report added, he radioed that the suspect wrested control of the device. Even with the Taser’s prongs deployed, the device can still be used as a stun gun to temporarily incapacitate someone.

Slager “felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon,” his attorney added.

The report indicated that Slager fired multiple times, but it was not specific.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... rake-light

Even without the video, the forensic, physical, and ballistic evidence would ultimately have completely demolished the credibility of this version of events, and told an entirely different story...

This case is basically the exact opposite of what happened in Ferguson; where all of the ballistic, physical and forensic evidence confirmed officer Wilson's version of what happened...

In fact the situation looked sufficiently questionable from the outset (and while there wasn't the national attention there is now it was already a big media story locally) that the North Charleston mayor and police chief had already turned the investigation over to the SLED before the video came to light...

Apart form the obvious unlikelihood of four shots in the back happening during a close-quarters "struggle" of some sort, (which was Slager's story) because of the video we now know what the investigation would have ultimately revealed, had there been no video:

1.Knowing what kind of weapon was fired, the sort of ammunition that was used, and through autopsy analysis of the entry wounds and level of penetration, the investigation would have conclusively determined that the shots were fired at considerable distance; (they wouldn't be able to say exactly from how many feet away, but they'd have a pretty good approximation) not during some sort of "struggle". (To say nothing of the fact that ballistics would have determined that Slager fired eight shots while only hitting Scott four times; not something you'd expect at close range.)

All of this would have proven conclusively not just that Slager's story about how the shooting took place was unlikely; but that it defied the laws of physics.

2. From the video, we know that it is unlikely that Scott ever even touched the taser, and the investigation would have found the same thing to be true because his finger prints wouldn't be found on it. From the video we know that Slager, while he dropped the taser next to Scott's body in a clumsy effort to lend credibility to his story, either didn't have the presence of mind or the time (knowing from the radio that another officer would be on the scene any second ) to press it in to Scott's hand.

3. We also know from the video (and again the investigation without the video would have ultimately discovered the same thing) that there were no bruises abrasions or scratches on Slager from this so called "struggle" In fact the only physical evidence of that sort that could have possibly have been found would have been on Scott's arm, where Slager had a hold of him while attempting to subdue him with the taser. All the physical evidence on both Slager and Scott would have contradicted Slager's claim of a physical struggle.

The argument that somehow this mountain of physical, forensic and ballistic evidence would somehow have all been swept under the rug absent the video is ridiculous, given the local media focus that already existed, and the fact the local authorities were already sufficiently concerned about how this had unfolded to turn it over to a third party investigation.

Eventually they would in have gotten to the same place they are now...

But all of that having been said, it is certainly a great benefit to the people of North Charleston that this video came to light, because rather than have this process drawn out, the video enabled the authorities to act swiftly.

Through his version of what took place, I believe that Slager attempted to make what we can see from the video was a cold blooded execution, "look" like something akin to what actually happened in the Ferguson case. But his attempt to do that would ultimately have failed, because unlike in the Ferguson case, all the evidence would have been against him, video or no video.

ETA:

What the video did capture that otherwise might not be known, was the sheer methodical cold-bloodedness of Slager's behavior, both in carrying out the shooting and afterwards. Personally, I hope he gets the death penalty.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:44 am, edited 5 times in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21005
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Excellent analysis and that's exactly why I used the word "may" (twice) in
the prosecutor may have DECIDED not to proceed and even if he/she had, THE grand jury MAY have decided not TO indict.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

rubato
Posts: 14215
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:It's certainly possible that (absent evidence) a prosecutor might decline to prosecute and/or a grand jury would not issue an indictment. Since in this case there is evidence, what's your point?
The point is that without video evidence, which had been shown to the public, in most jurisdictions in the U.S. a white person who shoots a black person in the back would get off no matter what the other evidence was. In most cases the prosecutor would lead the grand jury to do what he wanted.

And in the unlikely case that it went to a trial, like the Rodney King verdict, the white perpetrator(s) would get off.

It has really not changed all that much since Emmit Till was murdered.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Lord Jim »

Gee whiz, I got the impression that your "point" was that in this case:
rubato wrote:If there weren't a video the grand jury (under 'guidance' by the prosecutor) would refuse to indict.


yrs,
rubato
I guess my post was too long for you....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14422
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Joe Guy »

In the absence of solid evidence the policeman's explanation of what happened will always prevail.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Lord Jim »

That may well be Joe, (and I don't know what the alternative would be in that hypothetical...) but "absence of solid evidence" was certainly not the case here...

There's a ton of it, (without the video) and every bit of it contradicting Slager's account. Add that to the public and media focus that already existed, and there's no way this guy was going to walk.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by Guinevere »

Joe Guy wrote:In the absence of solid evidence the policeman's explanation of what happened will always prevail.
Even where there is solid evidence, the police explanation is often chosen, where these is a choice between the two.

I have a discipline case where the officer was charged with assault and battery. He claimed self-defense -- he claims the girlfriend he beat was drunk and beat him back -- although no probable cause was found to support his claim and no charges were brought. The criminal case was tried last week --- and it was a classic he said/she said --- and he was acquitted based on the same "self defense" claim for which there was no probable cause.

I'm so freaking pissed.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

liberty
Posts: 4494
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: The United Police States of America

Post by liberty »

bigskygal wrote:


I'm sorry I ever worked for the State; I only hope I can make it up in the remainder of my career as an advocate. While I never abused my prosecutorial authority, I came to realize in my last two years as a prosecutor that I just couldn't trust most police. I will remain steadfast in that conviction for the rest of my life.


I have always said that government is dangerous for that some have wanted to brand me a rightwing extremist. Well I am neither rightwing or an extremist; the simple fact is that all government is dangerous because government involves people with power and when people have some will abuse it. It is not just the police; the prosecutor, the tax collector and even the social worker can hurt you. They only vary by the amount of harm they can do. However, I would like to think that most people are good so hopefully these people that do harm are a minority.

Rub, you seem to think that this kind of thing only happens to black people; it happens to white people too, remember the Duke rape case, Ruby ridge, Waco and numerous harmless gun collectors shot up and killed in the middle of the night by the BATF.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

Post Reply