Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ask your President.

A) he is not my President. He is yours, whether you voted for him or not.
B) don't Congress have any powers to launch inquiries into such matters? If so, your answer is doubly weak and evasive. Quelle surprise

I'm not being evasive. It's a dumb question. DOJ, under the AG, who takes orders from the scoundrel in the White House, can launch an investigation any time it pleases. I

Email: scoundrel@whitehouse.gov

I'm sure either he or one of his staff of liars will get back to you.

So...

How does this explain no national enquiry before 2009 (the figures I had are from that period)?

And how does that address the question of whether or not Congress could do anything?

I am agreed that there are rare instances where the compliance does not always avoid getting shot. We used to have this discussion when Vince would bring up the same thing. Are you saying that compliance is a better or worse way to handle an interaction with a police officer.

As for the fear aspect of a police stop, We have covered that as well. You don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you. It should not be total abject fear of the police, but there should be some respect of authority and the fear of not respecting an officer.

bbauska

Are you saying that compliance is a better or worse way to handle an interaction with a police officer.

It depends entirely on how and in what way the citizen is being asked to comply.
And, how often....
if a person is being frequently stopped and questioned .... for apparently no reason other than their physical appearance...resentment will build.
If a particular community is frequently the target of stops, and the experience related within the community is negative, compliance will be grudging.
Abuse of authority degrades respect for authority.

Examples of interactions where police shootings occur seem to have one thing in common. The police are seen to be acting in less than respectful manner. if you want respect, give respect. If you want your authority to be respected don't abuse it.
if you want compliance, be certain the compliance you demand is necessary and not an abuse of authority.

What I don't like is the idea is the idea/implication that no matter how many people get shot it's not a big deal because normal law-abiding folks do comply. So most of us have nothing to worry about, right? But the fact is some will not be compliant (may be because of suspiciousness of police due to past police misconduct as Ricky says), but also due to youth, people having mental problems, people afraid of going to jail, etc. . Some are not going to comply--not everyone is middle-class and white with no criminal record-- and it solves nothing to lecture people about not complying. What it signals to me is the idea that once someone does not comply then anything goes. In fact, that does appear to happen in some cases--the police lose it when people do not comply with their orders. They get frustrated and angry. While that is understandable to a certain extent, we need the police to be calm, professional with their emotions under control. And we need them to use the force that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Of course people should comply when an officer makes a lawful request. But some people won't and their lack of compliance does not excuse unlawful force.

bbauska wrote:I am agreed that there are rare instances where the compliance does not always avoid getting shot. We used to have this discussion when Vince would bring up the same thing. Are you saying that compliance is a better or worse way to handle an interaction with a police officer.

For the love of Mike, you asked for one example, I found two in pretty short order and you suddenly "agree"?

Is it better to comply with a police officer? Yes.

Should it be at the threat of death? No.

If a police officer genuinely needs to use lethal force to defend themselves then fair enough - but it should always be thoroughly investigated by an independent body.

But "non-compliance" is not a capital offence. And the police are not empowered to be the judiciary and to carry out the punishment at the same time.

As for the fear aspect of a police stop, We have covered that as well. You don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you. It should not be total abject fear of the police, but there should be some respect of authority and the fear of not respecting an officer.

Respect is to be earned - if authority is being abused, then it should not be accorded respect. Also, Fear is not the same thing as Respect. Those who think they are the same, or you need fear to build or protect respect, are wrong. The "respect" engendered is not genuine. It also massively undermines the police.

You are missing a very important thing that the public need to have in the police: Trust.

In the UK, as I have mentioned before, we have (not codified in law, but recognised as important founding guidance) the "Peel Principles" for policing. There are nine of them, and I will underline the parts that suggest use of fear of lethal force is contradictory to good policing:

1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Again - you and DF are stalwarts when it comes to excesses of government. Many words about the harm caused if bakers aren't free to turm away gay couples, or Obamacare is enforced. But here is actual physical and fatal harm and suddenly you are all for government power, their agents to be feared and the victims are the ones to blame for non-compliance.

All the sound and fury about "breaking" the Constitution by allowing gay couples to marry, but what about the parts that were about restricting the lethal excesses of law enforcement? Which is the greater harm?

freeman3 wrote:As for President Obama...are you renouncing your US citizenship?

No, and I am not questioning his.

His actions of the last few months have convinced me he's not just a bad President, he's unworthy of the office.

danivon wrote:How does this explain no national enquiry before 2009 (the figures I had are from that period)?

And how does that address the question of whether or not Congress could do anything?

There's no need for national inquiries. There have been DOJ investigations into any number of jail systems--look them up.

Congress cannot order the DOJ around.

And, before 2011, it was largely a Democratic Congress. So, watch out.

freeman3 wrote:What it signals to me is the idea that once someone does not comply then anything goes. In fact, that does appear to happen in some cases--the police lose it when people do not comply with their orders. They get frustrated and angry.

If they give you a lawful order, it is quite natural for them to dislike your refusal. Unfortunately, we've not been able to breed robo-cop.

While that is understandable to a certain extent, we need the police to be calm, professional with their emotions under control. And we need them to use the force that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Agreed. However, when their lives are on the line, "control" is not the issue.

Of course people should comply when an officer makes a lawful request. But some people won't and their lack of compliance does not excuse unlawful force.

Quite right. However, it may justify some force.

Every case has to be looked at based on its own merits.

danivon wrote:If a police officer genuinely needs to use lethal force to defend themselves then fair enough - but it should always be thoroughly investigated by an independent body.

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want.

What all you whiny liberals assume is that the DA is the dog and the cops are the dog's owner. Nothing, in my experience, can be further from the truth. If a DA can take down a cop, they will. And, frankly, most cops are glad when it happens.

But, each situation has to be judged on its merits.

fate

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want

It becomes a Federal matter when treatment under the law becomes unequal.
If one State, or City, decides that it is too expensive to adequately police the police, it may happen in those jurisdictions that citizens are being denied their rights.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
It is no stretch to consider Federal intervention into jurisdictions that may have decided to let their police go unchecked.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If a police officer genuinely needs to use lethal force to defend themselves then fair enough - but it should always be thoroughly investigated by an independent body.

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want.

I never said it should be a Federal body. My opinion is that whoever pays for it or sets it up, that is what is preferable to internal investigations.

What all you whiny liberals assume is that the DA is the dog and the cops are the dog's owner. Nothing, in my experience, can be further from the truth. If a DA can take down a cop, they will. And, frankly, most cops are glad when it happens.

Your presumptions to what my assumption is wrong. I don't think that. What I do think is that if the UK rate represents a problem, then the US has a problem 10x as big. A problem of dead people at the hands of government agents.

But, each situation has to be judged on its merits.

Consistent and independent investigation would do that better than the usual American patchwork.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:How does this explain no national enquiry before 2009 (the figures I had are from that period)?

And how does that address the question of whether or not Congress could do anything?

There's no need for national inquiries. There have been DOJ investigations into any number of jail systems--look them up.

Congress cannot order the DOJ around.

And, before 2011, it was largely a Democratic Congress. So, watch out.

Again, you are playing partisan games. I don't actually care which branch of the Two-party hegemony controlled what.

But in response to your statements:

1) I was talking about the police, not jail. I understand there's an overlap but they are not the same
2) Why is there no need for a national review? Has the situation improved recently?
3) you don't need the DOJ, Congress not only is there to hold the DOJ or any other Executive branch agency to account, but they have the power to review national policy and outcomes.

You seem oddly defensive on this.

rickyp wrote:fate

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want

It becomes a Federal matter when treatment under the law becomes unequal.

True. And, when it does, they get involved.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If a police officer genuinely needs to use lethal force to defend themselves then fair enough - but it should always be thoroughly investigated by an independent body.

That is not a Federal issue. It is a matter for each State to decide and then determine how to pay for whatever investigation they want.

I never said it should be a Federal body. My opinion is that whoever pays for it or sets it up, that is what is preferable to internal investigations.

Deadly incidents are not handled by "internal investigations."

What all you whiny liberals assume is that the DA is the dog and the cops are the dog's owner. Nothing, in my experience, can be further from the truth. If a DA can take down a cop, they will. And, frankly, most cops are glad when it happens.

Your presumptions to what my assumption is wrong. I don't think that. What I do think is that if the UK rate represents a problem, then the US has a problem 10x as big. A problem of dead people at the hands of government agents.

Take it up with your representative.

But, each situation has to be judged on its merits.

Consistent and independent investigation would do that better than the usual American patchwork.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

danivon wrote:But in response to your statements:

1) I was talking about the police, not jail. I understand there's an overlap but they are not the same
2) Why is there no need for a national review? Has the situation improved recently?
3) you don't need the DOJ, Congress not only is there to hold the DOJ or any other Executive branch agency to account, but they have the power to review national policy and outcomes.

You seem oddly defensive on this.

You seem oddly ignorant on this.

1. Fine. However, every department across the country, and there are thousands, has its own procedures because it is responsible to its own constituents, not to those across the country.

Pardon me for being confused between "police" and "jail." After all, you did entitle the forum "Inquiry into Deaths in Police Custody."

2. A national review would have to account for the thousands of different standards and it would be a waste of time. Local control of law enforcement means responsiveness to local concerns. "Local" does not mean "United Kingdom." If the voters of any city or county don't like how their police work, they can change the system. They have that power. You fundamentally misunderstand our system.

3. You claim to understand our system. Anyone who did would not write ". . . they have the power to review national policy and outcomes." No, they don't have the power to impose national policy on local police departments. If we wanted a national police force, we would have one. Congress has no power over Downey PD or Worcester PD or the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

If that's not what you mean, then you'll have to explain yourself better.