rickyp wrote:fate

You know what? If that's the ONLY difference you can see between the UK and the US, after I mentioned differences that are geographic, cultural, and legal, then you're less intelligent than I supposed

The difference in the presence of guns is the only difference that really matters.
The rest is you just avoiding the obvious.

Your posts are as insightful as the contents of a cesspool. You fail to deal with the statistics I cite. You fail to deal with your own officers shooting and being shot. You fail to consider England has no Second Amendment, is an island, etc.

To summarize: you fail.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Maybe I missed it. I asked you a question. Do you think the use of fear or force should be used when needed.

I think you missed it. Here is my full post again with the answer in bold:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:It looked as if you are saying the use of fear or force should be used when needed. Am I understanding you? I do agree that the police can use fear too much, but to eliminate that as an option is to take away a useful tool when dealing with situation that can arise in the job.

This is not really the context that you were originally asked the question in, was it?

rickyp wrote:is it really acceptable that citzens should fear their police force?

The answer is still "no". The citizenry should not fear the police. Individuals, criminals in particular, should at times fear the actions of officers to restore law and order, but this is really a byproduct of the police using the minimum force necessary (and that the police will hand people over to justice).

Fear of the officers themselves, or a whole force, suggests a wider problem.

And as you agree that the police 'can' use fear too much, what do you suggest that we do to ensure that they don't? Or do we just rely on parents giving their kids (particularly if they are black), "The Talk"?

Please try to not sidestep and ask another question without answering that, and I will answer the use of fear too much question.

I am agog.

bbauska wrote:Please note #8. Compliance.
Sounds like what I was saying.

Huh?

If you are referring to the eighth of rickyp's quoted examples, you mean this?

Oscar Grant was on a subway train in Oakland when a police officer forced him out of the car and onto the subway platform. Oscar was lying down when a second police officer shot a bullet into his back. "You shot me! You shot me!" Oscar yelled before he died. That officer later testified that he meant to use his Taser on Oscar instead of his handgun. A court later ruled that the two had no legal reason to get Oscar — who was unarmed — off the train.

So, a guy who was accosted by officers for no legal reason, and was lying down, is going to be tazed but is shot 'by mistake' (an officer who cannot tell a tazer from a gun is not doing that well, surely?). What compliance issue are you seeing here?

Doctor Fate wrote:We learned of Mr. Peel, lo, those many years ago.

#2 is the key. The only people who should "fear" the police are crooks. But, the citizenry should "respect" the police--because of their actions and attitudes, but also because they put their lives on the line every day to protect and better the community.

You misunderstand Peel, and the nature of respect. If the police do not adopt an attitude or take actions worthy of respect, then they do not deserve it. Yes, they put their lives on the line, but if they are also endangering lives, it will be diluted somewhat.

I've not read this thread. I hope no one has been speculating about what happened. No one knows yet if the officer was justified in the use of force. He may have been; he may not have been. However, none of us has heard enough to know.

I have not been speculating. My main reason for starting the thread was to look at the issue of how the police acted after the incident, and whether, as Paul suggests, they are over-militarised.

For some reason, others just want to talk about the incident.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Maybe I missed it. I asked you a question. Do you think the use of fear or force should be used when needed.

I think you missed it. Here is my full post again with the answer in bold:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:It looked as if you are saying the use of fear or force should be used when needed. Am I understanding you? I do agree that the police can use fear too much, but to eliminate that as an option is to take away a useful tool when dealing with situation that can arise in the job.

This is not really the context that you were originally asked the question in, was it?

rickyp wrote:is it really acceptable that citzens should fear their police force?

The answer is still "no". The citizenry should not fear the police. Individuals, criminals in particular, should at times fear the actions of officers to restore law and order, but this is really a byproduct of the police using the minimum force necessary (and that the police will hand people over to justice).

Fear of the officers themselves, or a whole force, suggests a wider problem.

And as you agree that the police 'can' use fear too much, what do you suggest that we do to ensure that they don't? Or do we just rely on parents giving their kids (particularly if they are black), "The Talk"?

Please try to not sidestep and ask another question without answering that, and I will answer the use of fear too much question.

I am agog.

Thank you. I hope you recover from your agog-ness (?) My confusion lies in the answer being "no", and then the explanation saying "Individuals, criminals in particular, should at times fear the actions of officers to restore law and order".

We agree on this. The compliant citizenry should not be in fear of the police. Those who are NON_COMPLIANT should be in fear if and when it is employed. I am sorry that I did not understand what I perceived as a dichotomy in your words.

As for #8...
Perhaps the Wikihow article was not read by you. #8 in RickyP's link says the way to not get shot is to be compliant. Which is what I said in the first place.

This Ferguson shooting might be hinging on that very issue... Compliance.

I am still agog (it means I am in eager anticipation, in this case of your response on the overuse of fear).

There are two distinctions you appear to be missing. That between not complying with the law, and not complying with the will of a police officer (they are not the same thibg at all). And that between the advice given on how to avoid being killed by a cop, and whether we should need that advice.

danivon wrote:I am still agog (it means I am in eager anticipation, in this case of your response on the overuse of fear).

There are two distinctions you appear to be missing. That between not complying with the law, and not complying with the will of a police officer (they are not the same thibg at all). And that between the advice given on how to avoid being killed by a cop, and whether we should need that advice.

I do not and did not condone the overuse of fear. Never have and never will. That being said, I think we agree that the advice is a good thing, and we should give the officer compliance,and it is sad when the non-criminals in our society fear the police (the complying society should never fear).

And as I said earlier, I don't care if the criminals (people who do not comply with the law) fear. When you don't comply you should fear.

1. You have not really addressed the question of how we reduce the over-use of fear by the police. Just that it would be nice to, perhaps.

2. You appear to still be conflating two different concepts - non-compliance with laws, and non-comploance with police officers

Whenever a police officer over-uses fear (against the policy of the police dept.) he should be fired. That would solve the issue.

As for conflating the two:
If you are non-compliant with the law, that makes you a criminal; and I said I don't care if a criminal fears the police. They should fear the police.

If you are non-compliant with a police officer, you are risking harm. The Wikihow page says the best way to avoid being harmed by police is to comply. Again, that seems pretty simple, but some do not some people get harmed because of non-compliance.

Should the general populace who is in compliance with a police officer and in compliance with the law fear the police? Absolutely not.

Getting back to the Ferguson issue... If the police officer was shooting a man who was non-compliant and threatening the officer, I would hope you would agree that the officer is within his right (AND responsibility!) to use deadly force if needed. If the police officer was shooting a man who was compliant and non-threatening, then I am ok with the police officer being fired, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of state law.

Do we agree there?

What if the policy of the police department is to use fear?

And have you considered the case of someone in between your conditions? Such as someone who is compkying with the law, but does not comply with some martinet cop? Please also recall the principles of innocence until guilt is proven and of the police not being the ones to judge or pass sentence.

And please stop speculating over the specifics of the case, DF finds it unseemly.

danivon wrote:What if the policy of the police department is to use fear?

And have you considered the case of someone in between your conditions? Such as someone who is compkying with the law, but does not comply with some martinet cop? Please also recall the principles of innocence until guilt is proven and of the police not being the ones to judge or pass sentence.

And please stop speculating over the specifics of the case, DF finds it unseemly.

The the State steps in to correct the police dept policy,

Here is an example of what I picture your example:
Man stopped for matching suspect vehicle. Person in car does not argue, threaten or do anything but comply. Police man arrests and berates man in car. Man found to be not suspect, but car is only similar. In jail, man is released and asks for report and commences lawsuit against dept. If dept found guilty of false imprisonment and improper arrest/policy then the money will be given. Sounds pretty simple to me.

As for specifics, I think giving two hypothetical cases describing opposite sides; asking for your opinion is not too specific that you could comment on. Perhaps that is something you can't handle. I really do want your opinion. You are cogent and bright. Your opinion is worth something, and we can all be better for it.

As for DF finding it unseemly, that has never stopped you before.

Your example does not match my scenario. I am asking about an innocent person who does not comply. You gave me a description of an innocent person who does comply but has cause to complain.

You did indeed provide two extremes of what may have happened with Michael Brown. Of course the truth probably lies between them. On the second extreme, I do agree that the officer woukd be culpable and should be prosecuted.

On the other, I would say that an officer faced with a suspect who is non compliant and threatening, that the officer should employ the minimum force necessary to reduce the threat. In most cases that will not be lethal force. There should be a very high standard on when lethal force is justified, and we should not be in a situation where people (all people, because criminal suspects may be innocent and it is not up to the police to judge that) are in general fearful of a police stop.

Also remember that some people will find compliance easier than others. Someone who is under the influence (legally or not), or who is mentally less capable, or who has a medical condition, may not be able to deal with the situation as well as a perfectly rational being. And even the most rational pwrson has a bad day every now and again - running late, angry over something, etc.

Sure, police officers should be wise to threats, as they cannot be expected to be in possession of all the facts. But that is not a blank cheque.

danivon wrote:Your example does not match my scenario. I am asking about an innocent person who does not comply. You gave me a description of an innocent person who does comply but has cause to complain.

You did indeed provide two extremes of what may have happened with Michael Brown. Of course the truth probably lies between them. On the second extreme, I do agree that the officer woukd be culpable and should be prosecuted.

On the other, I would say that an officer faced with a suspect who is non compliant and threatening, that the officer should employ the minimum force necessary to reduce the threat. In most cases that will not be lethal force. There should be a very high standard on when lethal force is justified, and we should not be in a situation where people (all people, because criminal suspects may be innocent and it is not up to the police to judge that) are in general fearful of a police stop.

Also remember that some people will find compliance easier than others. Someone who is under the influence (legally or not), or who is mentally less capable, or who has a medical condition, may not be able to deal with the situation as well as a perfectly rational being. And even the most rational pwrson has a bad day every now and again - running late, angry over something, etc.

Sure, police officers should be wise to threats, as they cannot be expected to be in possession of all the facts. But that is not a blank cheque.

See? I knew we could agree. We are almost in total agreement. The person who is not being compliant for reasons of influence matters to you, but not me. If an officer is being threatened, then the reason does not matter.

I am concerned that you see me as a caricature of what I actually am. I do not want to go to the "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out." extreme. I want to have all tools available and use the proper tool for the proper job.

Thank you for letting me know what you think, Owen. I do appreciate it.

bbauska wrote:See? I knew we could agree. We are almost in total agreement. The person who is not being compliant for reasons of influence matters to you, but not me. If an officer is being threatened, then the reason does not matter.

All people matter. Even awkward ones who are not doing what people in authority tell them to.

I am concerned that you see me as a caricature of what I actually am. I do not want to go to the "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out." extreme. I want to have all tools available and use the proper tool for the proper job.

I think we differ on what the 'proper job' is, and on whether 'all tools' really are necessary. Do the police need the kind of military equipment that was being utilised in Ferguson? if they do, aren't they not the 'police' any more, but a paramilitary force?

Thank you for letting me know what you think, Owen. I do appreciate it.

I still don't know what you think to the case of someone who is innocent but does not fully comply with an officer. In other words they are compliant with the law, but not with someone who is telling them what to do. I think of such things as civil disobedience as an example.

Been Wanting to answer this all evening, but was at the fair with the family. Anyway... Here is my answer back to you.

First off, All people matter, but the reasons influencing does not. I can see why you might want to think otherwise, but it was not meant anyway other than that.

I do not think militaristic equipment is needed very often. However, when the situation arises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
SWAT eventually arrived bearing sufficient firepower, and they commandeered an armored truck to evacuate the wounded. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.

Does every place need this tool? No. Is it over utilized? Dang right it is, and I have said so before.