Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

it's not a police pride parade, it's a queer pride parade. if the police want to make a "queer cops of toronto" float, I'm sure that would be welcome, but just "HEY we're cops, let us into your non-cop parade filled with people we were shooting at and beating up 20 years ago!" is, in my opinion, stupid as fuck

Isn't it a show of solidarity?  It's not a gay culture, parade, it's a gay PRIDE parade.  Nice to have people support that.

[Descan]

That doesn't make people feel any safer at a place that's supposed to be for them, first and foremost.

[Max™]

Here's a video about the "I don't know" guy from youtube, because the other sites are all stuck in the stone age wanting to use flash for some damn stupid reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAJRcRZPfwQ

[SalmonGod]

I still don't understand why people who are 100% compliant and obviously engaged in nothing illegal or suspicious still need to be handcuffed and neglected after they've been wrongfully harmed.  The only reasoning I can think of is to characterize the victim as a criminal as much as possible by treating them like one to mitigate public opinion.  I... honestly can't think of any remotely logical, humane justification.  But it's what happens every single time nationwide.  Even if the person has been shot over a dozen times and is unconscious, the first thing they do is handcuff them.  I don't get it.

So I asked my officer friend to give me his perspective on this question.  Told him that no matter how I try, the only thing I can come up with is the tin-foil hat explanation, and I needed help.  This is a good guy who goes out of his way to help people.  I actually got this news story from him, because he was the first to share it and state that this person shouldn't have been shot.  He speaks out a lot about racism in the justice system.

His response:

There's always a possibility that they're dangerous and waiting for the time to strike.

I just don't even know what to say.  To me, it's beyond my capability to describe how off the deep end fucking paranoid and dangerous this attitude is.  Maybe when the encounter with the suspect has actually been violent in nature, and their wounds are not immediately life-threatening.  Otherwise, I cannot process it. 

Here's what I told him.

So a person calls the police for reasons that turn out to be totally false. Someone who was engaged in zero wrong-doing receives a life-threatening injury because of it.

And instead of "Oh shit we fucked up. This innocent person could die because of our mistake. Let's apply pressure to slow the bleeding until medical help arrives."

We get "Well... there's still technically the possibility that the guy could be dangerous. Better restrain him and keep our distance just in case."

I just can't. Can't do it. These justifications amount to treating every human being on the planet like they're a live hand grenade that needs to be defused, even when there's overwhelming presence to the contrary. Presenting me with this kind of thinking only strengthens my belief that we are safer without police.

[Truean]

Yeah, that's messed up....

No gun, talking to officers pretty politely, hands up, compliant.... Shit.

Even the more cynical side of me is having a hard time thinking of this one. I mean sure, it isn't like nobody has ever said, "I am unarmed" but then really had a gun or whatever. Still, either there are a lot of facts missing, or this officer is in some serious trouble.

Our whole country doesn't know how to deal with risk it seems. Economic risks of letting private corporations run amok; military risks of terrorism; community policing risks of danger.... It just seems things aren't going so well in that risk department to say the least.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Everyone's just so paranoid and scared to death over things other people have done, usually isolated incidents. I once had a handcuffed client, who just got done hearing all charges were being dropped against him. He sucker punched me in the face.  Long story short, he was upset he was arrested in the first place and wasn't freed sooner. I couldn't have done it any faster than I did....

Rationally, I know this probably won't happen again generally. Specifically, I know individuals in handcuffs can attack but statistically don't often. I realize this person was probably just very stressed, though that doesn't excuse the action. Basically, I refused to press charges in exchange for him telling me exactly why the hell he did that.... I don't know if I will ever get so close to a handcuffed prisoner again....

Does that excuse what this officer did? No.
Does it explain it? Most Probably not.
Do I have an answer? No.
Is the protocol often to treat everyone as dangerous? Yes.
Are there times when that works well? Yes.
Are there times when that doesn't work at all? Yes.

Looks like a jumpy as hell officer from what I've seen so far. Not good. Not good.

[Rolan7]

There's always a possibility that they're dangerous and waiting for the time to strike.

This is just true though...  Besides, how is even an cooperating person going to act after being shot?  I don't know what I'd do in that situation.  I'd probably be scared, angry, and not exactly thinking straight.

And that's even if the person is fully cooperative, which cops can't just presume.  So yeah, when conflict erupts (wrongfully or not), it needs to be fully resolved first.  Like when someone is drowning, you have to approach them from behind because otherwise they'll desperately drag you both down.  Not malicious, just dangerous.

I know we're talking about a situation where a cop probably wrongfully shot the guy.  But it's still true.  You can't trust a suspect, particularly one you just shot.
Which sucks, right? 
"Hey you over there!  Are you doing anything illegal?" "Nope!" "Awesome, have a good day citizen!"
"Oh shit, I accidentally shot you!" "Gosh this hurts, but I believe that it was an accident and won't seek revenge except through the justice system" "That's fair.  I'll just put my weapon away and focus on giving you first aid now"

[Rolan7]

My brother never mentioned the unconsciousness option, but he worked at a pool where it was relatively easy to get behind the distressed swimmer to grab them.  Also lots of people most of the time, so waiting might get someone else dragged down.

Also I think maybe it looks like I was mocking with those exaggerated situations...  I didn't mean it that way, just to illustrate a point with a little bitter humor.

[mainiac]

That doesn't make people feel any safer at a place that's supposed to be for them, first and foremost.

The police were making a parade feel dangerous?  That's... unusual.

[Chevaleresse]

Some people are nervous around cops, myself included. That goes double for people who happen to be disproportionately targeted by them.

[Zangi]

They might just randomly think you or someone near you is brandishing threateningly something that might look like a projectile weapon.  Free Fire is on by default.

[RedKing]

That doesn't make people feel any safer at a place that's supposed to be for them, first and foremost.

The police were making a parade feel dangerous?  That's... unusual.

When those cops used to harass and beat up the people in the parade on a regular basis? Not unusual.

Those assless chaps clearly could be concealing a weapon. Better not take the risk.

Honestly, it feels like a lot of cops have gone into "nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure" mode. Thank god we don't issue tactical nukes to police departments. Yet.

[SalmonGod]

There's always a possibility that they're dangerous and waiting for the time to strike.

This is just true though...

This is true any time one living being interacts with another living being.  Structuring your behavior around what is technically possible simply is not reasonable.  Some amount of vulnerability is a necessary component of productive interactions with other living beings.  I'm not even talking humans here.  Living beings period. 

My kids have pet guinea pigs, which they absolutely love.  It's technically possible that I could be bit by one of them and that bite could result in a fatal staph infection (I've had two very serious staph infections already, and I genuinely fear that the next would be life-threatening).  Should I go kill our pet guinea pigs?  I would be safer.

What it means to me when I'm expected to believe that police must operate by this logic is that we are safer without police.  It means that I should go about my life expecting that a police officer could randomly shoot me at any time, because it's technically possible that I could hurt them.

I grew up the majority of my childhood surrounded by people who wanted to hurt to me, and sometimes did.  I suffered random attacks by several people, some of them serious (stabbed in the arm with a pen, shoved into a large rusty spike, head slammed into floor/wall).  I knew these people didn't like me, but I never expected these attacks.  But I never hurt anyone in return.  Not once.  What effect would it have had on my life or the people around me if I just started being randomly violent in my daily interactions with people, just because I didn't know when someone might hurt me next? 

I just can't have any sympathy for this.  I don't understand how this logic is acceptable to anyone, unless the point being made is that we are safer without police.

Besides, how is even an cooperating person going to act after being shot?  I don't know what I'd do in that situation.  I'd probably be scared, angry, and not exactly thinking straight.

And when the guy responds peacefully and cooperatively to being physically handled after being shot?  Is it still questionable at that point?  What exactly does a person have to do to prove that they're safe?

You can't trust a suspect, particularly one you just shot.

And why do people continue to use the word suspect in situations where a crime hasn't even been suspected, and the original basis of the interaction has been debunked?

In this case, the only reason police showed up is because someone suspected there was a gun.  Not a crime.  Just the suspicion that someone had a gun.  After it's been determined there was no gun, and there was never a report of a crime to begin with, why use the word suspect?

[Egan_BW]

Suspects are people who we have shot or are going to shoot soon, duh.

[Rolan7]

There's always a possibility that they're dangerous and waiting for the time to strike.

This is just true though...

This is true any time one living being interacts with another living being.  Structuring your behavior around what is technically possible simply is not reasonable.  Some amount of vulnerability is a necessary component of productive interactions with other living beings.  I'm not even talking humans here.  Living beings period. 

Yeah, technically anyone you interact with could be criminally insane.  But cops need a reason to stop people, and a good reason to arrest them.  Hence famous "broken taillight" stops, and "Am I under arrest, or can I go?"
So by definition (assuming proper conduct) the police have some amount of reason to be more suspicious than of a random passerby.

And what I was emphasizing is that, once a conflict gets physical, it's very dangerous even if it appears to cool off.  Even if the cops are at fault for escalating (say, shooting someone unjustly), the situation needs to be brought under control with cuffs.  People, cops included, can act irrationally during and after a physical altercation.  Establishing restraints removes the danger and lets everyone calm down.

And uh, at that point they really should provide first aid...  Pretty sure that didn't happen in some cases, even after cuffing, which really is fucked up.

Suspects are people who we have shot or are going to shoot soon, duh.

Glad you're having fun

I think "suspects" are people being investigated...
There shouldn't be any negative connotation to it, people are innocent until proven guilty.  I guess there is a stigma, but it's a lot more honest than saying "murderer and victim".
Victim is technically correct too though.  Even an aggressive suspect who's gunned down while murdering police is a "victim" of gunshot wounds, and a victim of the cops.
I think "suspect" is more clear and less biased, but eh.  I don't get bent over shape about "victim", just prejudging people as "murderer".

In this case, the only reason police showed up is because someone suspected there was a gun.  Not a crime.  Just the suspicion that someone had a gun.

I don't really understand why the people suspected of having a gun wouldn't be considered suspects...  Or why the police would investigate if they weren't looking for a crime, like illegal possession of a firearm or something.

Like, maybe they shouldn't have ordered the people onto the ground and pointed weapons at them.  Whole situation appears horribly escalated by the police!  But they did, because they suspected the people of being dangerous.  So...  "suspects".  Again, probably a terrible error in judgement.

After it's been determined there was no gun, and there was never a report of a crime to begin with, why use the word suspect?

They're not suspects anymore, no.  But they were suspects at the time (or so I'm arguing), so it's fair to use that word when talking about the past event.

[Baffler]

The Obama administration is reportedly considering a ban on police departments buying gear like armored vehicles and riot gear rated for military use, or from military sources. It looks like a good step toward de-escalating, but I do note that the ban isn't on having these things, but acquiring them, so even if it does go through for some particular piece of equipment they won't stop using it, they just won't be able to replace it if something happens to it. Even so I'll be happy to see it go through.