The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[MadBurgerMaker]

At least someone supporting the police on this has the guts to say why a Black man was really shot.

Er....he "did not belong there" because apparently that was where his rape victim lives, and she is the one who called the cops on him, at least according to the woman's aunt.  Also that might have been her car.  She says he took her keys, at least.

His car.  The woman had a restraining order against him, says he showed up and "violated her."  The restraining order was because he has done this to her before.

[Ancient Demon]

I think you misunderstand my unease. The Patriot Prayer guys - who usually have Proud Boys with them at these things - are provocateurs. They deliberately bait people to upset them. Real life trolls, if you will. Driving through my neighborhood - with Trump flags, guys in the back calling out to vote Trump, taunting anyone they see but especially people of color - is begging for someone to do something to them. They know this because that's exactly what they've been doing for years.

On that we could mostly agree. I don't think what they're doing is a good idea or very productive. That's par for the course for a counterprotest though. I don't agree with heckler's veto, and I doubt you would either if the roles were reversed. The police need to do more to stop the actual violence though.

It all needs to stop, but it's not going to with those guys out trolling the streets for "antifa", aka "others".

Agreed. I also think more responsibility should be assigned to the mayors who initially ordered the police to stand down in the face of riots and refused federal assistance, and to the DAs for refusing to press charges against rioters.

[The Minsky Moment]

The BLM organizers have asked, but the police say not until the protests stop.

on that, they are absolutely right.  They should not cede to the demands of the street.

BLM want to meet with the police and politicians to explore solutions, fine, but the protests have to stop first. 

The protests do not "have to stop" because the right to protest is constitutionally protected.  A state officer or agency who conditions a reasonable request from citizens to meet to discuss the agency's conduct of its official duties on the waiver of a constitutional right is acting contrary to the Constitution.

The police serve the citizens not the other way around, a basic reality that seems a few police or police departments may have forgotten. If a group of concerned citizens who are otherwise law-abiding seeks dialogue with police in an effort to defuse violence it is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the police to refuse.

[DGuller]

I hope that Democratic city leaders in the US are not going to help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020.  Losing control and order is a deadly sin for any political leader, and is definitely a very effective way to activate the fear reflex that turns people fascist.

[Barrister]

So...

I have a sex assault trial tomorrow.  Amidst all the other things I do to get ready, I email my officers about times to come to court.  But funny enough, the email to my lead officer bounces.  I go to the EPS Crown Liaison office located inside our office, they search his name but are puzzled - he's still with the force but they have no contact info for him.

Based on which thread this is you can guess what's happened - yup he's been charged with assault for use of excessive force and suspended without pay.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-police-commission-upholds-suspension-1.5690950

Technically he is under subpoena, and this is a major file.  We'll see what happens...

My constable did in fact show up today.   I remember him now - was very nice and personable to me and the victim.

[derspiess]

The BLM organizers have asked, but the police say not until the protests stop.

on that, they are absolutely right.  They should not cede to the demands of the street.

BLM want to meet with the police and politicians to explore solutions, fine, but the protests have to stop first. 

The protests do not "have to stop" because the right to protest is constitutionally protected.  A state officer or agency who conditions a reasonable request from citizens to meet to discuss the agency's conduct of its official duties on the waiver of a constitutional right is acting contrary to the Constitution.

The police serve the citizens not the other way around, a basic reality that seems a few police or police departments may have forgotten. If a group of concerned citizens who are otherwise law-abiding seeks dialogue with police in an effort to defuse violence it is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the police to refuse.

What about the riots?  Should they stop?

[Valmy]

What about the riots?  Should they stop?

They should never have started.

But I don't see why the police should refuse to cooperate with law abiding citizens just because others are breaking the law.

[Tamas]

What about the riots?  Should they stop?

They should never have started.

But I don't see why the police should refuse to cooperate with law abiding citizens just because others are breaking the law.

It's as good an excuse as any.

[The Minsky Moment]

What about the riots?  Should they stop?

They should never have started.

But I don't see why the police should refuse to cooperate with law abiding citizens just because others are breaking the law.

Agreed.

[Sophie Scholl]

Losing control and order is a deadly sin for any political leader, and is definitely a very effective way to activate the fear reflex that turns people fascist.

*Looks at the responses in this thread* You don't say...

[HisMajestyBOB]

So...

I have a sex assault trial tomorrow.  Amidst all the other things I do to get ready, I email my officers about times to come to court.  But funny enough, the email to my lead officer bounces.  I go to the EPS Crown Liaison office located inside our office, they search his name but are puzzled - he's still with the force but they have no contact info for him.

Based on which thread this is you can guess what's happened - yup he's been charged with assault for use of excessive force and suspended without pay.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-police-commission-upholds-suspension-1.5690950

Technically he is under subpoena, and this is a major file.  We'll see what happens...

My constable did in fact show up today.   I remember him now - was very nice and personable to me and the victim.

Probably less nice and personable to his alleged victim. 
But I'm glad he was able to show. Good luck! 

[viper37]

What leverage do they have when the protests stop?

they can resume the protests if their goal of meeting the politicians does not materialize despite the promises.

protesting won't change anything and change will take time.  Disbanding the police is not realistic in a large city like Portland, too much chaos involved.  Defunding the police, if by that they mean less money for surplus military equipment and more money on social services, that is a realistic goals.  If they mean "gut them until there's no money for police work", it is not.

[viper37]

my understanding of the case is that Blake was told to stop multiple times, 2 officers fired their tasers at him, and he kept going for his car where a knife was seen (and found).

unless the knife was planted there after the fact by the officers (unlikely, since he did say he had a knife), I don't see how it can be a hate crime at this point.  Maybe there's other evidences not referred by Wikipedia?

Blake was shot in the back six times.  Whether police had fired tasers at his back before then is not relevant.  whether there was a knife in his car is not relevant.  At the time he was assaulted, he posed no threat to anyone.  The officers could not have been in fear of their life given that his back was turned to them.  Police had no reason to believe that he had committed a crime, nor that he was going to commit a felony unless the police used deadly force.  So, the deadly force was not justified.  If you want to weasel about whether it was a "hate crime" or merely unprovoked attempted murder, please do so elsewhere.

There was a warrant for his arrest, and there had been a complaint he did not belong there.

At least someone supporting the police on this has the guts to say why a Black man was really shot.

I did not say I supported the police, nor did I say they were justified in shooting him.  But again, the threshold for a hate crime is too high in this case, no jury would ever convict a police officer on such a case, and even if you don't do criminal law, as a lawyer, you know that.

I am stating the facts as they are.  Even attempted murder would likely be too high an accusation to reach a gulty verdict.

But by all means, let's prosecute all police shootings as attempted genocide, it will certainly do some good to some people who can then lament that justice does not work.

[viper37]

The protests do not "have to stop" because the right to protest is constitutionally protected.  A state officer or agency who conditions a reasonable request from citizens to meet to discuss the agency's conduct of its official duties on the waiver of a constitutional right is acting contrary to the Constitution.

hmm.  I have my doubts about this.

There are violent protests going on.  It is impossible to discern whom is behind it.  Are they independant actors showing up for the fun of it?  A loosely organized group in hidden DarkWeb chatrooms coordinating their attacks?  A response to reading what is written in Dark Web neo-nazis/far right boards?

The fact is, the protests are protected so long as they are not violent.  And no politician or police officer has a duty to obey a mob, you know that as well as I do.

BLM says they ain't the ones looting. Fine. Let them stop their organized protests so there is no more motive for looters to systematically appear then.  If the looting continues, they can claim it ain't their fault, they ain't orchestrating protests. 

If the politicians still refuses to meet them, then they return to the street.

If a group of concerned citizens who are otherwise law-abiding seeks dialogue with police in an effort to defuse violence it is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty for the police to refuse.

At this moment, it is unknown if they are law abiding.  They say there are against the violence, but they do nothing to prevent it.  Police has no obligation to meet their demands, especially since they are unspecific.

If a police department acts immediatly by suspending an officer after a shooting and there is a genuine investigation going on into the events, therre is no reason to protest that.

When the same thing comes over&over, I understand the group to want change.  But simply protesting with signs "DEFUND THE POLICE" ain't gonna work.

[viper37]

I hope that Democratic city leaders in the US are not going to help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020.  Losing control and order is a deadly sin for any political leader, and is definitely a very effective way to activate the fear reflex that turns people fascist.

I fear, just like Valmy, this is where it will lead.