the Michael Brown thread
- Thread starter 2clicker
- Start date
Caligula
Maximus
The point is that you have to take a knife wielding maniac seriously. It's nice to make graphics like that in order to illustrate a point, but having absolutely no context can be misleading. I don't know a single thing about either of the cases in the picture you posted, but I'm willing to bet the circumstances arent as identical as they are trying to make it seem.
As it is, they (who ever made that graphic) are saying this is an apples to apples comparison because both incidents involve a mentally ill individual holding a knife and police with guns.
If you Google up "China school stabbings", you will see that there are a LOT of them, and most were committed by mentally ill people. So, using that same logic, we can say those individuals are the same as the two in the US and Germany.
Obviously this isn't the case... but then again it's probably not the case between the two examples illustrated in your picture either.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
As it is, they (who ever made that graphic) are saying this is an apples to apples comparison because both incidents involve a mentally ill individual holding a knife and police with guns.
If you Google up "China school stabbings", you will see that there are a LOT of them, and most were committed by mentally ill people. So, using that same logic, we can say those individuals are the same as the two in the US and Germany.
Obviously this isn't the case... but then again it's probably not the case between the two examples illustrated in your picture either.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
Last edited:
Caligula
Maximus
Always? Interesting.
On an aside, I don't consider shooting someone, even if it's in the leg, "non lethal".
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Ok, not always, but most of the time.
Caligula
Maximus
I'm still going to need some sort of factual evidence to back this statement up. Even if it's 51% of the time, I'd agree with you, but for some reason I doubt that's an accurate assessment.
I'm really interested to see what you're basing this statement on.
And remember when you're looking the stats up, apparently incidents where the suspect is shot but not killed, count as the police using a non lethal option.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
I'm basing my statement on what I have seen over the years. Do you have any basis/factual evidence that the police use other means over lethal means more?
Caligula
Maximus
Besides the fact that they are equipped with and trained to use less than lethal tools? Or that my tax money paid for those tools and training?
I suppose there are the "hundreds of hours" of youtube footage showing cops tazing and OC spraying people.
There's also news reports where the suspect is taken into custody instead of killed.
Oh and speaking about things we've experienced personally, there's the time I saw a drunk guy get a face full of OC spray by a cop in front of a bar.
Now how is any if this different than what your citing as proof "police opt for the lethal option most of the time"?
Regardless, thinking about the sheer numbers of police in America and the amount of encounters they have with suspects every day of the year, 24/7... I'm still going to have to say MOST of those encounters result in the suspect being alive after the fact. Of course this is just an educated guess based on the maths involved.
I suppose there are the "hundreds of hours" of youtube footage showing cops tazing and OC spraying people.
There's also news reports where the suspect is taken into custody instead of killed.
Oh and speaking about things we've experienced personally, there's the time I saw a drunk guy get a face full of OC spray by a cop in front of a bar.
Now how is any if this different than what your citing as proof "police opt for the lethal option most of the time"?
Regardless, thinking about the sheer numbers of police in America and the amount of encounters they have with suspects every day of the year, 24/7... I'm still going to have to say MOST of those encounters result in the suspect being alive after the fact. Of course this is just an educated guess based on the maths involved.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but it would seem to me to be less lethal than shooting someone on top of his head and through his brain though...
Caligula
Maximus
It would be hard to argue that point to the guy who bled out after a femoral artery was hit by the round.
Bullets are no joke. Even a relatively tiny 9mm round to the leg can kill someone quite easily.
Of course to argue semantics (because I like to do that apparently), people have lived after being shot in the head as well. Even twice.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what a femoral artery is, all I'm saying is it's much more likely you will die from a bullet through the brain vs the leg. I don't think too many people would argue with that
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Here is just one example, but there are many more, in many cities throughout the United States. It's a pattern of behavior that is being allowed to continue.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/justice/albuquerque-police-brutality-report/
(CNN) -- Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officers killed a 19-year-old as he "lay motionless on his back," an unarmed drugstore robber who was walking away from officers and a 25-year-old veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who threatened to shoot himself in the head.
So says the U.S. Justice Department, which on Thursday issued a report lambasting the Albuquerque Police Department for a longstanding history of police brutality and unnecessary deadly force.
The 19-year-old, Andrew Lopez, caught Albuquerque police officers' attention while driving with dim headlights and no taillights; when police tried to pull him over, he led them on a low-speed chase before parking and taking off on foot, the report said.
Five officers gave chase, and when Lopez reached a fence and began to turn around, one of the officers fired three times, hitting Lopez once. The nonlethal shot put Lopez on his back, the report said, and the officer approached him and fired a fourth shot into his chest, killing him.
The February 2009 incident, which resulted in a $4.25 million payout to Lopez's estate, is one of several incidents the Justice Department cites in concluding that the Albuquerque Police Department "has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, including deadly force."
Read the full report (PDF)
Requests for comment sent to the police department and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez's office were not immediately returned, and Phil Sisneros, a spokesman for state Attorney General Gary King, said in an e-mail, "Our office did not have a role in the DOJ's report or investigation. We are looking into a couple of the most recent police-involved shootings, but that is in the nascent stages."
Police brutality in New Mexico's most populous city made headlines last month when protesters clashed with police in riot gear for more than 12 hours over the fatal shooting of the homeless James Boyd, 38.
After the protests, Kenneth Ellis, the father of the suicidal veteran killed in 2010, told CNN affiliate KOAT that police brutality had reached "crisis" levels in Albuquerque.
"Our police department is out of control. They need help with their tactics," Ellis said.
Thursday's report did not address the Boyd shooting, which is the subject of a separate federal investigation.
Force incidents are not properly investigated, documented, or addressed with corrective measures.
Justice Department report
"The pattern and practice is the result of serious systemic deficiencies in policy, training, supervision and accountability. The police department's failure to ensure that officers respect the Constitution undermines public trust," the report's summary says.
In the Lopez case, police said they thought he was involved in a prior incident involving a gun, and the officer who shot him said that when he confronted Lopez, he believed Lopez was carrying "the biggest handgun he had ever seen." The car Lopez was driving did not match the make, color or type of vehicle used in the previous incident, and Lopez turned out to be unarmed, the Justice Department report says.
"For too long, Albuquerque officers have faced little scrutiny from their superiors in carrying out this fundamental responsibility," the report says. "Despite the efforts of many committed individuals, external oversight is broken and has allowed the department to remain unaccountable to the communities it serves."
To conduct its review, the Justice Department "reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including written policies and procedures, internal reports, data, video footage, and investigative files," the report says. It also interviewed command staff, rank-and-file officers and community members, and held four community meetings where residents "provided their accounts of encounters with officers."
The report had four major findings:
• The department's officers "too often used deadly force in an unconstitutional manner," and of the 20 fatal police shootings since 2009, most were not constitutional.
Albuquerque police not only use deadly force when there's no imminent threat of bodily harm or death, they also "used deadly force against people who posed a minimal threat, including individuals who posed a threat only to themselves or who were unarmed. Officers also used deadly force in situations where the conduct of the officers heightened the danger and contributed to the need to use force."
• The department's officers also use less-than-lethal force unconstitutionally. A review of 200 use-of-force reports since 2009 indicates that officers use Tasers on people who are nonthreatening, posing minimal threat, passively resisting or "unable to comply with orders due to their mental state."
In one instance, officers used Tasers on a man who had doused himself in gasoline, setting him on fire and endangering everyone in his vicinity.
Officers also use "takedown procedures" in ways that increase harm, and they "escalate situations in which force could have been avoided had they instead used de-escalation measures."
• Officers used a "significant amount of force" against people with mental illness and in crisis. "APD's policies, training and supervision are insufficient to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that respects their rights and is safe for all involved."
• Instances of officers using excessive force are "not isolated or sporadic." The pattern of police conduct suggests "systemic deficiencies in oversight, training, and policy. Chief among these deficiencies is the department's failure to implement an objective and rigorous internal accountability system. Force incidents are not properly investigated, documented or addressed with corrective measures."
To that end, the Justice Department investigators said they found "only a few instances" of supervisors scrutinizing use of force and seeking investigations. In almost all of the cases reviewed, supervisors endorsed their subordinate's version of events even if an officer's account was incomplete, inconsistent with evidence or "based on canned or repetitive language," the report said.
The Justice Department lays out several remedies to address the department's "deficiencies," including improving use-of-force policies, training procedures, internal investigations, recruitment protocol and how it deals with individuals suffering from mental illnesses.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for New Mexico and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division launched their probe in November 2012, and then-Police Chief Ray Schultz released a statement saying his department was cooperating with federal investigators.
"We know that we are not always perfect and that there is always room for improvement," Schultz said in his statement.
Schultz stepped down in 2013 and was replaced by Gordon Eden, a former U.S. marshal and state public safety secretary, this year.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/justice/albuquerque-police-brutality-report/
(CNN) -- Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officers killed a 19-year-old as he "lay motionless on his back," an unarmed drugstore robber who was walking away from officers and a 25-year-old veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who threatened to shoot himself in the head.
So says the U.S. Justice Department, which on Thursday issued a report lambasting the Albuquerque Police Department for a longstanding history of police brutality and unnecessary deadly force.
The 19-year-old, Andrew Lopez, caught Albuquerque police officers' attention while driving with dim headlights and no taillights; when police tried to pull him over, he led them on a low-speed chase before parking and taking off on foot, the report said.
Five officers gave chase, and when Lopez reached a fence and began to turn around, one of the officers fired three times, hitting Lopez once. The nonlethal shot put Lopez on his back, the report said, and the officer approached him and fired a fourth shot into his chest, killing him.
The February 2009 incident, which resulted in a $4.25 million payout to Lopez's estate, is one of several incidents the Justice Department cites in concluding that the Albuquerque Police Department "has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, including deadly force."
Read the full report (PDF)
Requests for comment sent to the police department and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez's office were not immediately returned, and Phil Sisneros, a spokesman for state Attorney General Gary King, said in an e-mail, "Our office did not have a role in the DOJ's report or investigation. We are looking into a couple of the most recent police-involved shootings, but that is in the nascent stages."
Police brutality in New Mexico's most populous city made headlines last month when protesters clashed with police in riot gear for more than 12 hours over the fatal shooting of the homeless James Boyd, 38.
After the protests, Kenneth Ellis, the father of the suicidal veteran killed in 2010, told CNN affiliate KOAT that police brutality had reached "crisis" levels in Albuquerque.
"Our police department is out of control. They need help with their tactics," Ellis said.
Thursday's report did not address the Boyd shooting, which is the subject of a separate federal investigation.
Force incidents are not properly investigated, documented, or addressed with corrective measures.
Justice Department report
"The pattern and practice is the result of serious systemic deficiencies in policy, training, supervision and accountability. The police department's failure to ensure that officers respect the Constitution undermines public trust," the report's summary says.
In the Lopez case, police said they thought he was involved in a prior incident involving a gun, and the officer who shot him said that when he confronted Lopez, he believed Lopez was carrying "the biggest handgun he had ever seen." The car Lopez was driving did not match the make, color or type of vehicle used in the previous incident, and Lopez turned out to be unarmed, the Justice Department report says.
"For too long, Albuquerque officers have faced little scrutiny from their superiors in carrying out this fundamental responsibility," the report says. "Despite the efforts of many committed individuals, external oversight is broken and has allowed the department to remain unaccountable to the communities it serves."
To conduct its review, the Justice Department "reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including written policies and procedures, internal reports, data, video footage, and investigative files," the report says. It also interviewed command staff, rank-and-file officers and community members, and held four community meetings where residents "provided their accounts of encounters with officers."
The report had four major findings:
• The department's officers "too often used deadly force in an unconstitutional manner," and of the 20 fatal police shootings since 2009, most were not constitutional.
Albuquerque police not only use deadly force when there's no imminent threat of bodily harm or death, they also "used deadly force against people who posed a minimal threat, including individuals who posed a threat only to themselves or who were unarmed. Officers also used deadly force in situations where the conduct of the officers heightened the danger and contributed to the need to use force."
• The department's officers also use less-than-lethal force unconstitutionally. A review of 200 use-of-force reports since 2009 indicates that officers use Tasers on people who are nonthreatening, posing minimal threat, passively resisting or "unable to comply with orders due to their mental state."
In one instance, officers used Tasers on a man who had doused himself in gasoline, setting him on fire and endangering everyone in his vicinity.
Officers also use "takedown procedures" in ways that increase harm, and they "escalate situations in which force could have been avoided had they instead used de-escalation measures."
• Officers used a "significant amount of force" against people with mental illness and in crisis. "APD's policies, training and supervision are insufficient to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that respects their rights and is safe for all involved."
• Instances of officers using excessive force are "not isolated or sporadic." The pattern of police conduct suggests "systemic deficiencies in oversight, training, and policy. Chief among these deficiencies is the department's failure to implement an objective and rigorous internal accountability system. Force incidents are not properly investigated, documented or addressed with corrective measures."
To that end, the Justice Department investigators said they found "only a few instances" of supervisors scrutinizing use of force and seeking investigations. In almost all of the cases reviewed, supervisors endorsed their subordinate's version of events even if an officer's account was incomplete, inconsistent with evidence or "based on canned or repetitive language," the report said.
The Justice Department lays out several remedies to address the department's "deficiencies," including improving use-of-force policies, training procedures, internal investigations, recruitment protocol and how it deals with individuals suffering from mental illnesses.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for New Mexico and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division launched their probe in November 2012, and then-Police Chief Ray Schultz released a statement saying his department was cooperating with federal investigators.
"We know that we are not always perfect and that there is always room for improvement," Schultz said in his statement.
Schultz stepped down in 2013 and was replaced by Gordon Eden, a former U.S. marshal and state public safety secretary, this year.
olivianewtonjohn
Well-Known Member
Of course Vicki you have a very reasonable point that I think most people understand. Caligula default position seems to be the status quo is cool beans and anyone who has trouble with the police are bad people/criminals
(I wonder if he feels the same way about many people here illegally smoking herb). I have no clue who would say knives are no biggie so IDK why he thinks thats relevent.@Caligula yes I use tweets as evidence if you read enough of them from people in the area you get a general sense. If your really interested and approaching this with an open mind why not step away from both the tweets and right wing blogs/fox news and go watch live feed and video evidence? I just wonder at what point the evidence becomes a tipping scale for you? Your not going to find a scientific paper on it or something if thats what your after.
From watching live feeds you quickly get the sense that the police think they are in Baghdad or some crazy shit. Their actions only help to ignite a crowd who already are pissed at the police. When I watched I am just sitting here not even at the protest and watching the police seriously pissed me off. You have them yelling at protesters to get the fuck out of the area, the protestors head to the other end and the swat on that end tells them to turn around. You have them firing tear gas at journalists who are not even near the protests. You have them tearing off a vice journalists press sign and saying "this does not mean shit". They force the media into a "media only zone" and then told them all to go home. In general their attitude is something of a hot head in high school, definitely not a train professional. My description does not do it justice so....
Your welcome to watch them for yourself. Vice has their live streams stored and I believe Infowars has theirs stored as well.
"Open minded" are you sure open minded as you claim? You wanted some examples before. Well here is an example. You really want to argue whether a gun shot wound to the head or leg is worse? Obviously people can die from being shot anywhere thats common sense. I wouldnt doubt people have died from just the shock of having a gun drawn on them. Your point is pretty pointless IMO. Please let us know if there are stats showing a leg gun shot wound being more lethal than a gun shot wound to the head otherwise Vicki's point stands.
Last edited:
Caligula
Maximus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers
http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/asp/ucr_display.asp
United States: 780,000 active duty police in 2012
51% of 780,000 = 397,800
So are you saying there are almost 400,000 bad cops in this country at this very moment (or at least in 2012?)
Probably not, that's silly. Besides not all those cops have only 1 arrest during an entire year. Maybe we should look at that?
Total arrests made in the United States in 2011: 12,408,900
This would mean that there would need to be... what... over 12.5 MILLION dead people each year due to police choosing the "lethal" option?
I hope you can see how I'm confused as to how you're quantifying a statement like "American police opt for the lethal option over non lethal methods most of the time".
Officer Gofuck Yourself in charge in Ferguson . . .
Oh, you mean this guy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ointing-rifle-at-protesters-threatening-them/
The only thing hes in charge of now is his TV remote.
Idiots doing idiot things because they're idiots.
Last edited:
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Not really, no. Sorry.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Yes but that particular "idiot" has a badge and an assault rifle.
Caligula
Maximus
A couple of things.
- The "right wing blog" you are referencing was the first source of the story I referenced. I actually heard about it on the Reddit feed for the MB case, but even then they linked the New York Post's article on it, not the blog's. I added the link to the blog for full disclosure after looking at the NYP's citation.
- I linked the article to also being on Fox News because I agreed that the initial report had a questionable source. Even though I dislike Fox News, I find it hard to believe that anyone would say thats less reputable than a random political blog.
- You failed to mention when I also linked the ABC News report on the same story.
When there is some actual solid evidence reported publicly. That will be my tipping point. So far there has not been enough solid information available to come to a conclusion in this case. Patience sometimes truly is a virtue.
If all I did was read negative reviews on products Id never buy anything because from my perspective everything must be a piece of shit.
Its a sad situation to be sure. Whats worse though, is that a minority of asshats are making this problem so much worse for everyone involved by being douchebags to the police and/or other protesters as well as local businesses, homes, etc. I see lots of animosity towards the cops but hardly any towards the individuals who are making this situation so much worse for the protesters who want to do so peacefully.
I can honestly say that I 100% believe if there had been 0 incidents of violence and looting at the beginning, this wouldn't have escalated to where it is now. To be sure both parties are very guilty of propagating the problem over a period of time, but who really started it?
Your welcome to watch them for yourself. Vice has their live streams stored and I believe Infowars has theirs stored as well.
Yes.
Hopefully you can provide some numbers for me then?
Not anymore he doesn't. That's the point, isn't it?
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
I'm not a computer. I don't have "numbers" for you. I only know what I read/see with my eyes, and hear with my ears.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
He was only suspended. He will be back on the front lines in no time. It's not like he killed anybody right?
Caligula
Maximus
I'm not a computer. I don't have "numbers" for you. I only know what I read/see with my eyes, and hear with my ears.
Do you have a favorite product? Go on Amazon sometime and look up the reviews for that product. Of course you'll need to filter out the positive reviews and only view the neutral and negative ones.
Now if you've never used that product yourself, and are only going off of what you see and read... what do you think your opinion on said product would be? Do you think it would still be fair to say that this product is a POS "most of the time" ? Do you think perhaps, that's not a very accurate way of forming an opinion on something?
You forgot to add the "pending further investigation" part to "He was only suspended". You cant say with any type of certainty what this person's end punishment will be, especially given the media attention involved.
Regardless, when you're suspended you lose that badge.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
I'm not talking about buying a product and negative reviews. I am speaking about what I have seen/read or heard involving police use of lethal force. I could post many more examples like Albuquerque, but I don't think I could ever post enough to satisfy you, so I chose not to do so.
olivianewtonjohn
Well-Known Member
And a live feed is only the neutral and negative?
I assumed you hadnt watched the feeds because I thought you would be atleast alittle more worried about the train professions actions.