Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[imatfaal]

 

Presumably at some point an inventory was made of what was found near the victim, so if that list is made public we should be able to narrow that down.

 

 

AFAIK shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back is generally not within the realm of reasonable force, and moving evidence of any kind is also unlikely to be proper procedure. Obviously the shooter should be put on trial. I want to know what's going to happen to the other cop who helped with the coverup.

 

 

Completely Agree.

 

I also wonder what the reaction of the police unions will be - they have been aggresively vocal in their support of borderline cases so far. But this does not seem to be borderline. I think the "esprit de corps" of defending a brother right or wrong may be overwhelmed by the realization that this form of police action is threatening the positions and even safety of all serving officers; they will not cut him loose publically - but he might not receive the support that, for example, Officer Pantaleo did.

 

My real fear is that the trial will be as poorly handled by the prosecutors as the grand jury of Officer Wilson was, the jury will be forced to give a verdict of not guilty, and all hell will break loose.

@ StringJunky, but point but here is the United States if you can articulate that you fell fear for your life than you can kill. The likelihood of actual jeopardy to safety isn't any sort of benchmark. It is an incredible cynical standard that shows little respect life IMO. Not only that but fear is not always rational. Fear can be heightened by things like low visibility, silence, a cool breeze, a black cat in the road, and many other factors that may not play any role in situational safety.

 

While a baton or restraining holds may work "what if" arguments often get made. Low probability outcomes are used to explain why anything other than use of a firearm would've been too risky. it is akin to the "you can't prove there is no god" argument. Many have a trained apathy. Acknowledgement that we can never know for 100% what would have happened is information enough. Maybe Michael Brown was going to run back and kill the policeman with his bare hands. No one can prove he wasn't. The policeman said Michael Brown had a very scary look on his face. Said he looked like a demon. Case closed!!!

 

How do we solve it? I think identifying that there is a problem is the first step. Many Americans are misinformed and or uninformed. Gun culture and the idea of gun ownership as a patriotic duty of sorts has corrupted the truth. Most of the people I know (I know a whole lot of gun owners) believe that gun ownership in a community improves safety. That places with more rigorous laws experience more crime. They also tend to believe assualt and murder stattistics are at all time highs when the opposite is true. We need leadership in government that is brave enough to fail. Candidates and elected officials that don't shy away from addressing the issue because they fear losing certian votes or NRA backing. When enough people speak up a national debate will be had and slowly attitudes will change.

 

 

AFAIK "stand your ground" laws have a 'reasonable and honest' phrasing - which in English law would not allow a purely subjective and irrational belief to be used. I have no idea about US interpretation but that sort of wording could be translated as "other people would have the same reaction" and "you actually had that reaction at the time" - a black cat would fail the first part and a witness telling of your excitement and enjoyment would negate the second.

[swansont]

I think the "esprit de corps" of defending a brother right or wrong may be overwhelmed by the realization that this form of police action is threatening the positions and even safety of all serving officers; they will not cut him loose publically - but he might not receive the support that, for example, Officer Pantaleo did.

 

I think this is the part of the iceberg we don't see, even as more and more people realize the amount of racism going on — that there is a problem in being loyal to your partners (police, military, and other occupations) and to also swear an oath to serve. You aren't protecting and serving the people if you are complicit in covering the transgressions of your partner. But I suspect the local pressure to have the partner's back is overwhelming, so that it becomes the primary goal.

[Ten oz]

 

 

AFAIK "stand your ground" laws have a 'reasonable and honest' phrasing - which in English law would not allow a purely subjective and irrational belief to be used. I have no idea about US interpretation but that sort of wording could be translated as "other people would have the same reaction" and "you actually had that reaction at the time" - a black cat would fail the first part and a witness telling of your excitement and enjoyment would negate the second.

 

The interpretation is left to a Jury ( assuming it makes it that far). In the Ferguson case the officer did say that Michael Brown's face looked like a demon while explaining the fear he had for his life. While I consider that information frivolous and dont feel it add any justification for his actions many view it differently. Proving that a person had fear for their life to many is equal to proving they had a rational reason to be afraid.

[imatfaal]

The interpretation is left to a Jury ( assuming it makes it that far). In the Ferguson case the officer did say that Michael Brown's face looked like a demon while explaining the fear he had for his life. While I consider that information frivolous and dont feel it add any justification for his actions many view it differently. Proving that a person had fear for their life to many is equal to proving they had a rational reason to be afraid.

 

Surely the interpretation is for the Judge; the weighing of facts, testimony, and evidence is left to the jury. Traditionally the judge tells the jury what the law says, what it means, what can be considered and cannot etc - the jury are the arbiters of fact; ie do we believe this, can we accept that etc...

[swansont]

The interpretation is left to a Jury ( assuming it makes it that far). In the Ferguson case the officer did say that Michael Brown's face looked like a demon while explaining the fear he had for his life. While I consider that information frivolous and dont feel it add any justification for his actions many view it differently. Proving that a person had fear for their life to many is equal to proving they had a rational reason to be afraid.

 

The Supreme Court has held that "[deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

 

With this most recent case, it's hard to reconcile a fleeing, unarmed suspect stopped for a non-functioning taillight as posing a significant threat. The officer can't argue that the suspect was charging at him. It looks to me like the mere existence of fear is not what's required. There needs to be probable cause to to have that fear.

[Ten oz]

The Supreme Court has held that "[deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

 

With this most recent case, it's hard to reconcile a fleeing, unarmed suspect stopped for a non-functioning taillight as posing a significant threat. The officer can't argue that the suspect was charging at him. It looks to me like the mere existence of fear is not what's required. There needs to be probable cause to to have that fear.

And yet Michael Brown was unarmed and shot at a distance by an officer who claimed he feared for his life. Most of the general public think it was justified.

[swansont]

And yet Michael Brown was unarmed and shot at a distance by an officer who claimed he feared for his life. Most of the general public think it was justified.

 

Not that I am one of them, but according to this the direction the suspect is moving matters; note the phrase "prevent escape". That implies this ruling does not apply to the Michael Brown case, since he was not fleeing.

[iNow]

This is just one case. There were 111 murders of citizens by cops in the US... In March alone, and as we learned in the Michael Brown / Eric Garner cases, the existence of video isn't enough to make things better.

 

This case in South Carolina where the officer was charged is the exception, not the rule, and (if I had to guess) it's probably only because he so blatantly moved evidence AFTER the man was killed.

[StringJunky]

This is just one case. There were 111 murders of citizens by cops in the US... In March alone,

Unreal. Americans with guns is like heroin to a drug addict.I know it's not all Americans but they are the influential consensus that keep things as they are.

[Robittybob1]

What are the rules over there about talking to a police officer? Are you just allowed to run away and not expect to get shot?

[iNow]

^TBD, apparently.

[Ten oz]

Surely the interpretation is for the Judge; the weighing of facts, testimony, and evidence is left to the jury. Traditionally the judge tells the jury what the law says, what it means, what can be considered and cannot etc - the jury are the arbiters of fact; ie do we believe this, can we accept that etc...

The Supreme Court has held that "[deadly] force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

 

With this most recent case, it's hard to reconcile a fleeing, unarmed suspect stopped for a non-functioning taillight as posing a significant threat. The officer can't argue that the suspect was charging at him. It looks to me like the mere existence of fear is not what's required. There needs to be probable cause to to have that fear.

Law are slightly different state to state. Here is the Department of Homeland Security's (ICE, CBP, USCG, TSA, U.S Marshall, Etc) use of force policy:

"C. Use of Deadly Force

 

1. The Department of Homeland Security Policy on the Use of Deadly Force governs the use of deadly force by all DHS officers/agents and employees. The complete DHS policy is contained in Appendix II.

 

2. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person."

http://www.dhs.gov/publication/use-force-policy

 

 

 

 

"Reasonable Belief" is the key phrase. Long as the officer(s) believe they are in danger they can use deadly force. In court long as the officer(s) can articulate fear, a belief that they were in danger, they are justified in using deadly force.

[imatfaal]

..."Reasonable Belief" is the key phrase. Long as the officer(s) believe they are in danger they can use deadly force. In court long as the officer(s) can articulate fear, a belief that they were in danger, they are justified in using deadly force.

 

Ten Oz - I cannot comment on US interpretation but that is not really what reasonable would mean in a UK court. A reasonable belief is that which is similar to the belief that would be held by the "man on the clapham omnibus" if placed in similar situation - that's the old legal chestnut; in cynical reality it means whatever the judge wants it to mean

 

 

I would also hope that the use of deadly force would be governed by a law or the courts rather than a departmental procedure manual - although it does read as if this is not the case; I do not have the time to check.

[swansont]

Law are slightly different state to state. Here is the Department of Homeland Security's (ICE, CBP, USCG, TSA, U.S Marshall, Etc) use of force policy:

"C. Use of Deadly Force

 

1. The Department of Homeland Security Policy on the Use of Deadly Force governs the use of deadly force by all DHS officers/agents and employees. The complete DHS policy is contained in Appendix II.

 

2. Authorized Officers/Agents may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person."

http://www.dhs.gov/publication/use-force-policy

 

 

 

 

"Reasonable Belief" is the key phrase. Long as the officer(s) believe they are in danger they can use deadly force. In court long as the officer(s) can articulate fear, a belief that they were in danger, they are justified in using deadly force.

 

And there is nothing there inconsistent with the supreme court ruling, which would trump any individual jurisdiction anyway. The context of that ruling was to strike down the state statute that allowed deadly force under basically any circumstance when police confronted a suspect "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

 

Even the DHS wording says "reasonable belief". You can fear for your life, but that does not mean the fear is automatically reasonable. As in a case of an unarmed suspect fleeing the officer.

[imatfaal]

 

And there is nothing there inconsistent with the supreme court ruling, which would trump any individual jurisdiction anyway. The context of that ruling was to strike down the state statute that allowed deadly force under basically any circumstance when police confronted a suspect "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

 

Even the DHS wording says "reasonable belief". You can fear for your life, but that does not mean the fear is automatically reasonable. As in a case of an unarmed suspect fleeing the officer.

 

 

Even more so now that I read the DHS advice. The next lines are

 

Fleeing Subjects. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect

[Ten oz]

Even more so now that I read the DHS advice. The next lines are

 

I don't think we are commenting on the same issues. I am saying I believe the policies are written too loosely and allow for deadly force to be too easily justified.

 

As that applies to fleeing suspects I think it goes without saying that no one should every be shot in the back. Not unless doing so directly saves someone's life.

[imatfaal]

[Robittybob1]

Running away and fighting would be the wrong thing to do in any country, surely.

As a youth I'd run from the police, but it wasn't without risk. It was the wrong thing to do for I was wrong from the start.

[imatfaal]

Running away and fighting would be the wrong thing to do in any country, surely.

As a youth I'd run from the police, but it wasn't without risk. It was the wrong thing to do for I was wrong from the start.

 

Rob - I don't think anyone is claiming that running away or fighting when approached/challenged by a police officer is the best way to defuse a situation. But it is hard to deny that in the current climate any action by a black man or child other than complete compliance, not to say docility and submission, risks the use of deadly force being applied. It is also apparent that unless evidence is utterly compelling and gathered by members of the general public that those who apply deadly force will very rarely have their actions tested in the fact-finding tribunal of a criminal court; in the vast majority of cases it is decided administratively that there is no case to answer

[Robittybob1]

 

Rob - I don't think anyone is claiming that running away or fighting when approached/challenged by a police officer is the best way to defuse a situation. But it is hard to deny that in the current climate any action by a black man or child other than complete compliance, not to say docility and submission, risks the use of deadly force being applied. It is also apparent that unless evidence is utterly compelling and gathered by members of the general public that those who apply deadly force will very rarely have their actions tested in the fact-finding tribunal of a criminal court; in the vast majority of cases it is decided administratively that there is no case to answer

They say a taser had already been fired and there was a scuffle prior to the video. So he must have known he needs to comply. OK planting evidence and lying about giving CPR when none was given shows there was a lack of respect. The policeman needed to be sacked. But what are the police going to do to get compliance if everyone from now on just runs away?

Would the words "Stop or I'll shoot" make the difference?

These were the questions going through my mind when I first saw the video. No one in the news reports has mentioned what should happen in these situations as yet.

Looking up "Stop or I'll shoot" on Google, I found a statement. Senior Assistant Attorney General Susan Morrell said: in http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/22/stop-or-ill-shoot-is-not-the-law-of-the

 

“Stop or I’ll shoot,” is not the law of the land. Law enforcement officers may not fire on fleeing suspects, or known criminals for that matter, simply to prevent them from getting away. Deadly force may only be employed when an officer needs to defend him- or herself or a third party from the imminent use of deadly force, or to prevent the escape of someone the officer believes will seriously endanger human life if not apprehended without delay.

Well that does answer my question.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

But what are the police going to do to get compliance if everyone from now on just runs away?

It doesn't matter. It needs to be something other than shooting them in the back 8 times.

[Robittybob1]

It doesn't matter. It needs to be something other than shooting them in the back 8 times.

You fire 8 shots but how do you know if any have hit the target? I did see any shots being fired into the person while they were down.

Maybe the whole idea of running after an offender is wrong. Are you allowed to run after someone and tackle them to the ground if they are running away? Are you allowed to punch them or taser them from behind?

[moth]

Innocent people may be less likely to run away when they don't feel like they are being robbed by a cop trying to make up for bugetary shortcomings in the local government.

[iNow]

You fire 8 shots but how do you know if any have hit the target?

They're citizens, not targets.

[Willie71]

Running away and fighting would be the wrong thing to do in any country, surely.

As a youth I'd run from the police, but it wasn't without risk. It was the wrong thing to do for I was wrong from the start.

 

When people have not been subjected to corruption, they assume that cooperation would result in a more moderate response from the police. However, there are even more stories and videos of blacks standing in a mall, walking down the street, pulled over for a questionable traffic violation, or driving a car nicer than the cops think a black could afford etc. being beaten, arrested without due process, held in jail for weeks or months, and yes killed making cooperating as risky as running away. In a moment of panic, running away at least gives you a chance to avoid the abuse if you are lucky.

 

There are a number of psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies that show the seemingly odd responses such as a crowd submitting to a small number of captors, or a single individual fighting against what appears hopeless. Running actually makes more sense than it seems on the surface.