or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 304

post #4546 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

Seems that as long as the shooting is investigated and ruled on by the  governing authority due process is served ????

Depends.

If a police officer shoots and kills you with justification as established by the circumstances as described by rnoldh, it can be said that the state's exercise of lethal force against you was consistent with due process (because the only process that's really called for or "due" is the officer's reasonable determination that you are attempting to kill him or her.)

If a police officer shoots and kills you without justification, then not so much. A post-mortem investigation would undoubtedly involve a lot of process, but I think most of us would conclude that the appropriate process for the execution of a citizen by a government agent would, absent circumstances of the sort rnoldh describes, emphasize the prospective a bit more and not focus entirely on the retrospective.
Edited by lawyerdad - 7/12/16 at 5:02pm
post #4547 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Can they? Of course. In the sense we're using due process here (to mean, more or less, the rules that govern the state's exercise of its power over us) a police officer who shoots a criminal in self-defense is quite likely acting consistently with due process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

Seems that as long as the shooting is investigated and ruled on by the  governing authority due process is served ????

So, for instance, Michael Brown received due process, since the cop that shot him claimed self defense, and that claim was exhaustively investigated by the DOJ, before the Officer was exonerated.

Is that correct?
post #4548 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post


So, for instance, Michael Brown received due process, since the cop that shot him claimed self defense, and that claim was exhaustively investigated by the DOJ, before the Officer was exonerated.

Is that correct?

I didn't follow the case closely (and even if I had there undoubtedly would be things I still wouldn't know) so I can't give you an opinion on it specifically.

But assuming that the officer that shot him did so with a reasonable, good faith belief (I don't recall offhand the exact legal standard, but it's something like that) that he needed to do so to defend himself, then Brown probably did receive due process.


More broadly, are you sure you want to propose "exhaustive DOJ investigation results in no indictment" become the litmus test dividing the guilty from the innocent and the good from the evil? smile.gif
post #4549 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


I didn't follow the case closely (and even if I had there undoubtedly would be things I still wouldn't know) so I can't give you an opinion on it specifically.

But assuming that the officer that shot him did so with a reasonable, good faith belief (I don't recall offhand the exact legal standard, but it's something like that) that he needed to do so to defend himself, then Brown probably did receive due process.


More broadly, are you sure you want to propose "exhaustive DOJ investigation results in no indictment" become the litmus test dividing the guilty from the innocent and the good from the evil? smile.gif


I always accept the government at their word and believe they are the grand arbiters of innocence, good, and goodness.

post #4550 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


More broadly, are you sure you want to propose "exhaustive DOJ investigation results in no indictment" become the litmus test dividing the guilty from the innocent and the good from the evil? smile.gif

No, certainly not. It just seems this has become part of the BLM MO. Anytime a black man is shot by a white cop, they immediately cry out for a full DOF investigation, no matter how murky or clear cut the case is.

Examples abound. This weekend, in my town Houston, a black man was shot by 2 cops ( not sure if they were Spanish or white ), and though there was body cam footage, our Mayor is shuttling the case off to the Feds to "satisfy the community's outcry for transparency".

I'm not sure if the Castile investigation has gone to the Feds, but the Sterling investigation has.

Maybe this is a precursor to the Lib dream of a National Police Force. Wouldn't surprise me a bit though it seems a huge unmerited expense. I wonder how much these numerous DOJ investigations have cost us?
post #4551 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

No, certainly not. It just seems this has become part of the BLM MO. Anytime a black man is shot by a white cop, they immediately cry out for a full DOF investigation, no matter how murky or clear cut the case is.

Well, I think it's more about not having the fox investigate the henhouse theft, plus a level of community distrust rooted in history. And the DOJ has folks specially tasked and trained to do those sorts of investigations, largely because of that very history.

Beside, as Ataturk keeps reminding us, no potential case against a police officer can ever be clear cut.
post #4552 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


I always accept the government at their word and believe they are the grand arbiters of innocence, good, and goodness.

If you don't accept the DOJ decisions on the Brown and Garner cases, what recourse do you propose? Really, what would you do in these families shoes?

Garner got civil "justice" via De$Blasio, and Brown got a Foundation for his aggrieved Momma.

But I guess it fair and valid to recognize that many think Justice was not done.
post #4553 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post



Beside, as Ataturk keeps reminding us, no potential case against a police officer can ever be clear cut.

If you follow these type cases, the Walter Scott, the Dubose ( in Cinncinnatti ), the Akai Gurley, and the LaQuan case seemed clear cut.

After the fact, it can be said the Garner case was not so clear cut as many thought, or at least the DOJ thought not.

What about these recent Castile and Sterling cases? Do you think they are clear cut? I think they absolutely are not, and they should be investigated to the hilt.
post #4554 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

If you don't accept the DOJ decisions on the Brown and Garner cases, what recourse do you propose? Really, what would you do in these families shoes?

Garner got civil "justice" via De$Blasio, and Brown got a Foundation for his aggrieved Momma.

But I guess it fair and valid to recognize that many think Justice was not done.

Sorry, I don't steep myself enough in this stuff to follow your chain of associations.

I didn't say I don't accept the DOJ decisions. They are what they are, and in my experience the DOJ reaches the right decision much more often than otherwise. But the outcomes of those investigations don't actually answer the questions you posed, at least directly. An investigation that doesn't result in an indictment generally doesn't exonerate the target or subject of the investigation. It just makes a determination about the state of the available evidence and potential next steps.

I'm not even sure what the questions about recourse and standing in the families' shoes is getting at (mostly because I've paid so little attention to these cases). If there's been a legal finding that the police acted appropriately, then the families probably don't have a legal recourse. What would I do? I guess it depends on what I believed happened to my family member, among many other factors. I know nothing about either of those families.
post #4555 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


I always accept the government at their word and believe they are the grand arbiters of innocence, good, and goodness.
I thought that was Facebook.
post #4556 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Well, I think it's more about not having the fox investigate the henhouse theft, plus a level of community distrust rooted in history. And the DOJ has folks specially tasked and trained to do those sorts of investigations, largely because of that very history.

Beside, as Ataturk keeps reminding us, no potential case against a police officer can ever be clear cut.

 

Perhaps the community should just get over it and let bygones be bygones.  How did Rudy put it?   "...you’ve got to teach your children to be respectful to the police, and you’ve got to teach your children that the real danger to them is not the police..."

post #4557 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Perhaps the community should just get over it and let bygones be bygones.  How did Rudy put it?   "...you’ve got to teach your children to be respectful to the police, and you’ve got to teach your children that the real danger to them is not the police..."

Lol this is hilarious - quoting to keep it
post #4558 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Perhaps the community should just get over it and let bygones be bygones.  How did Rudy put it?   "...you’ve got to teach your children to be respectful to the police, and you’ve got to teach your children that the real danger to them is not the police..."
False dichotomy, no? There can be more than one source of danger, and teaching your children to be respectful yet also wary of police is not impossible.
But more to the point, my comment was meant to be descriptive rather than normative, in direct response to a somewhat tinfoil hattish (albeit perhaps not entirely serious) post. Regardless of whether that sense of mistrust is exaggerated or misplaced, the fact that it exists seems inarguable. I would certainly agree that its pervasiveness and the tendency of some people to elevate (or reduce) it to simplistic jingoism is deeply unfortunate.
post #4559 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Lol this is hilarious - quoting to keep it

I know this is unachievable, but is it really bad advice to give to children?
post #4560 of 6201
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

I know this is unachievable, but is it really bad advice to give to children?
Doesn't that depend in part on whether or not their interactions with police are likely to be dangerous and what makes them so?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?