patrick.net

AlexS says

Unfortunate, but VERY TRUE.

Whenever Apocalypse is the most rational guy in the room, the situation is all fucked up.

AlexS says

We see heavily armed and armored paramilitary thugs who see citizens as potential enemies.

Which is why the only solution is to have a civilian "cop control" force that is authorized to use deadly force against the police when they threaten public safety.

Also, civilians should be able to prosecute cops in a court system that is independent of the criminal court system used against civilians. The judges cannot be trusted.

How sad. I have a healthy fear of the police, rightfully so. The police state is the biggest threat to our collective freedom and our individual liberties. I never hear the gun fearing leftists calling for disarmament of the police state. Conversely, they always seem to want to give them more power.

Dan8267 says

Still waiting for Conservatives like TenOunceTrout to chime in

You disappoint me Dan, TenOuncer is no Conservative.

Dan8267 says

http://rt.com/usa/news/florida-man-police-kill-325/

The police had reasonable suspicion that a violent man who ran from police was in there. The soon to be dead guy has an unholstered gun. The officer had a reasonable fear that his life could be over in 2 seconds. The officer acted corectly.

Dan8267 says

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124838/police-seeking-robber-kill-unarmed-innocent-man/

This guy runs from police multiple times and "acts like a caged animal". He most likely had warrants and did not want to fulfill his legal obligation to present himself to the court to face charges.

In both cases short sighted actions contributed to their own death.

Both stories are extremely light on details and heavily biased against LEO's.

Without police, vigilante anarchy would rule the land. There would be no civilization.

Loyalty to the professional clan over the profession? This is a very dangerous trend. In case of police, it's also a characteristic of third world countries.

Very disturbing, indeed.

The judges cannot be trusted

Who is watching. The watchers?

Anytime someone forces you to subordinate to their supposed authority, you're all the way fucked.

Its rarely ever a race issue, relative to how justice in this country is always a money issue. That's why I say we needed an Affordable Lawcare Act, before we can ever address our collective health. One cannot be of good health in the body, if they are under constant duress of the mind and "soul". Literally. Elevated levels of cortisol, the bodys response to stress, causes chronic health issues. So long as law is merely a means of profiteering, this will only get worse. If you want to take the money out of politics, then socialize lawcare. What purpose does for profit law serve in a just society, anyways? So that we get the best law care, that money can buy? What happens to those of us that can't afford it? We end up in prison assembling government office furniture for .40 an hour so they can discard the perfectly good government office furniture that they paid 10x for last year. We end up forced to the door of those wrtched criminal defense attorneys to bankrupt our way free of persecution. The same attorneys that buy plates at the dinners of the judges and their politician friends. We end up on the wrong end of the night stick, shackled and thrown in a cage like an animal, left to rot

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

Still waiting for Conservatives like TenOunceTrout to chime in

You disappoint me Dan, TenOuncer is no Conservative.

He must have confused him with tenpoundass

Family members told CBS News station KCBS-TV that Nida had jaywalked across a busy street to buy cigarettes as his wife bought gas. Nida was spotted by a Downey officer, who said he was acting suspiciously. The officer asked Nida to sit down.

"He got up and ran away," Dolson said.

Meh. Don't break the law and then run away when they catch you. he's not innocent, he just didn't deserve to get shot, but you take that risk when you run away from cops.

Meh?

Whatever happened to the old adage, we' rather have ten guilty men walk free, then have one innocent man wrongly shot to death by a brutally militant police state?

Did you really just rationalize someone being gunned down by police, for jaywalking?

Dan8267 says

Which is why the only solution is to have a civilian "cop control" force that is authorized to use deadly force against the police when they threaten public safety.

That Police Unions do everything in their power to prevent, circumvent, or destroy.

Another thing is that the Chiefs of Police just about everywhere are more and more the leader of the gang rather than the boss who enforces discipline or standards.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Fact: One of the most popular items in police supplies stores is the OPERATION GHETTO STORM T-shirt. Typically, the illustration shows a burning city with attack helicopters hovering over it, firing down into the mayhem below.

Yep, They also sell Anti-Protester shirts. Cops HATE Protesters more than anything, no matter how non-violent they are. Protesting is silly, it's just an invitation for the Government to demonstrate they are capable of force.

Speaking of Protesters, don't you love the "Black Bloc" bullshit? I'm supposed to believe a bunch of "Anarchist" punk kids have the money to fly to every international conference ever held, and that none of them ever get stopped at the border. Yeah, right.

I'll always remember career day in High School. There were two types of kids who went to the police table: The smelly, bully types, the kind that whack off while burning stray cats, and the tightass asskissing hallway monitor types, the ones that ratted you out for smoking, but did the same shit themselves when the teachers weren't around.

foxmannumber1 says

The police had reasonable suspicion that a violent man who ran from police was in there. The soon to be dead guy has an unholstered gun. The officer had a reasonable fear that his life could be over in 2 seconds. The officer acted corectly.

Yeah, it was an innocent homeowner seeing who is pounding on his door at 1:30AM. For safety, he took his firearm in case it was criminals. He's supposed to use his psychic powers like superman and see through the door and know it's cops and not a home invasion?

foxmannumber1 says

This guy runs from police multiple times and "acts like a caged animal". He most likely had warrants and did not want to fulfill his legal obligation to present himself to the court to face charges.

You neglected to mention that the cops neither handcuffed him nor searched him for weapons when he sat down as ordered the first time. Typical cop BS. They say they suspected weapons, but they never checked for a weapon when they stopped him. That's the excuse now after the cops in the incident talked with their union lawyer who is coaching them.

Also, why do our brave defenders insist on shooting every Chihuahua and Shih Tsu they come across in the line of duty?

thunderlips11 says

Yeah, it was an innocent homeowner seeing who is pounding on his door at 1:30AM. For safety, he took his firearm in case it was criminals. He's supposed to use his psychic powers like superman and see through the door and know it's cops and not a home invasion?

The police are only human and just like the "victim", can't know who's on the other side of the door when they have reasonable suspicion that the violent criminal is inside. If this story is as simple as the biased article claims, which I doubt, it is unfortunate that anyone died.

thunderlips11 says

You neglected to mention that the cops neither handcuffed him nor searched him for weapons when he sat down as ordered the first time. Typical cop BS. They say they suspected weapons, but they never checked for a weapon when they stopped him. That's the excuse now after the cops in the incident talked with their union lawyer who is coaching them.

http://downeybeat.com/2012/08/ron-thomas-calls-for-downey-city-council-to-meet-with-family-of-michael-nida-93176/

The shooting is still under investigation. A rational unbiased person would wait for that to finish before making a judgement.

Police make the correct decision when dealing with criminals the vast majority of the time. On the other hand, criminals make the wrong decisions 100% of the time.

I believe that liberalism is a synonym for 'anarchy'. In a liberal fantasy land people can do whatever they want with no penalty. The only people who would be punished in this backwards world would be those who tell others not to do the morally wrong thing.

foxmannumber1 says

The police are only human and just like the "victim", can't know who's on the other side of the door when they have reasonable suspicion that the violent criminal is inside. If this story is as simple as the biased article claims, which I doubt, it is unfortunate that anyone died.

Reasonable prudence sounds even better. Reasonable Suspicion is in the eye of the beholder. Knowing that it's possible you could be mistaken is reasonable. Not knowing how, if you're mistaken, how and when a homeowner will appear is also reasonable.

foxmannumber1 says

"victim"

You mean Andrew Scott, 26, who was not the target of the search. They found the guy, named Brown, that they were looking for shortly after.

Why is "Victim" in quotes? You say:

foxmannumber1 says

A rational unbiased person would wait for that to finish before making a judgement.

Here's the article:

The police had been searching for Jonathan Brown and an accomplice, who had attacked a man in the street and attempted to smash a cinder block on his head before being stopped by a passerby. Being pursued by deputies, the attempted murderer escaped, and Florida police began their search.

Seeing Brown’s motorcycle parked outside of Scott’s building, they quietly approached, refraining from announcing themselves outside of the wrongly suspected attacker’s door to avoid scaring him off. Upon seeing the man’s gun, the police opened fire, leaving multiple bullet holes in his door as they killed the innocent man. Neighbors awoke to the sound of gunfire and screams from the victim’s girlfriend.
...
After realizing their mistake, police found 31-year old Brown in the building next door and arrested him.

Neighbors said Scott was a nice guy, and find the mix-up a sad mistake. The police department says it would not have opened fire if the man had not been holding a gun, but neighbors want to know why the authorities didn’t identify themselves at the door.

.
http://rt.com/usa/news/florida-man-police-kill-325/

But because police believe it's better not to announce themselves, because of stupid Drug War policy that came out of the No-Knock bullshit, it's better that an innocent man be killed, than a guilty man remain free for a few more hours.

thunderlips11 says

Why is "Victim" in quotes? You say:

The article is too simplistic. Upon hearing all the details and knowing what evidence the officers had at the time only can you then make a rational judgement. The officer has just as much right, if not more, to defend himself in that uncertain situation.

As I said before, it is unfortunate.

foxmannumber1 says

thunderlips11 says

Why is "Victim" in quotes? You say:

The article is too simplistic. Upon hearing all the details and knowing what evidence the officers had at the time only can you then make a rational judgement. The officer has just as much right, if not more, to defend himself in that uncertain situation.

As I said before, it is unfortunate.

Not simplistic at all. The cops had the decision how to go about investigating the building. They could have knocked and announced themselves. They could have taken out a loudspeaker and called for everyone in the building to come out unarmed.

Instead, they did not. The Cops had control over the situation and how to execute it: They instigated the building search. Police Policy post drug-war is not to knock, not to announce themselves, but treat every situation like this as raiding a Meth Lab filled with crazies. Problem is not every situation is like that.

Excuses don't matter, an innocent man is dead. The answer is: How to prevent it next time. The cops will say "Don't answer the door at 1 in the morning with a firearm when people are knocking but won't say who they are or, better yet, sheep assholes shouldn't carry firearms, leave it to us tactical experts to protect you. Leave your freedom and safety to us, trust us, we're from the government", but that's stupid, unrealistic, and dangerous.

Police make the correct decision when dealing with criminals the vast majority of thetime. On the other hand, criminals makethewrong decisions 100% of thetime.

I believe that liberalism is a synonym for 'anarchy'. In a liberal fantasy land people can do whatever they want with no penalty. The only people who would be punished in this backwards world would be those who tell others not to do the morally wrong thing.

---------------------------------------------------------

In a free world, people can do whatever they want with no penalty, so long as they are not inflicting harm upon someone else.

What world do you live in, where you claim to be free, yet need liberal lawyers to write laws and militant police state wingnuts armed to the teeth to enforce them at the end of a gun, to dictate to you what is right and what is wrong "morally" ?

If you come a knockin on my door at 130am, be warned I will be armed. Don't start no shit won't be no shit.

------------------------

The officer has just as much right, if not more,to defendhimself in that uncertain situation.

------------------------

What does this even mean? 'If not more'

errc says

What world do you live in, where you claim to be free, yet need liberal lawyers to write laws and militant police state wingnuts armed to the teeth to enforce them at the end of a gun, to dictate to you what is right and what is wrong "morally" ?

In an unnatural, racially heterogeneous society such as the United States. Before racial integration, the country was mostly white. Before racial integration, militant local law enforcement was not necessary.

Now that we have super majority black areas who are immume to all but the most serious prosecution, such tactics are necessary. In super majority white areas, such police are not necessary.

Racial integration leads to unnecessary conflict and distrust of supposedly equal neighbors and citizens. It is a false statement to claim blacks equal to whites.

I would venture to say that most current day "conservatives" would be "liberals" in a homogenous society. They see the wasteful spending with 0 positive results when it comes to blacks and just want it stopped. If the money was spent on whites it would be put to good use due to the natural ability of the white race. Instead, trillions have been squandered on "civil rights" to simply prevent the black american from rioting and destroying the cities that the white man built.

I see. So you are content with sacrificing your own liberties, in order for the government to protect you from the black man.

errc says

I never hear the gun fearing leftists calling for disarmament of the police state. Conversely, they always seem to want to give them more power.

I'm not a leftist, but I am a liberal and I have called for more accountability of the police and disarmament of the police.

errc says

I believe that liberalism is a synonym for 'anarchy'. In a liberal fantasy land people can do whatever they want with no penalty.

No, in my liberal fantasy there are no victimless crimes and those who enforce the law are require to obey it and are punished just like civilians when they do break it.

Also, there are limits to what can be done by law enforcement. For example, sexually assaulting people people is not acceptable regardless of what you call it (strip search, patdowns, body scans, etc.). If I can't do it to your 6-year-old daughter, you can't do it to mine or to me or to anyone else.

errc says

The officer has just as much right, if not more,to defendhimself in that uncertain situation.

If Andrew Scott had killed any of the police, he would be charged with first degree murder. Every one of those police should get a life sentence under Florida's 10-20-Life law. This was the most heinous murder in Florida since that law was passed.

Oh, and the fact that they lied afterwards about what happened, makes it an even bigger crime.

Dan8267 says

I'm not a leftist, but I am a liberal and I have called for more accountability of the police and disarmament of the police.

Society would be better served by calling for more accountability of its citizens.

By dwelling so much on the police you are ignoring the real problem: crimes by normal citizens.

foxmannumber1 says

By dwelling so much on the police you are ignoring the real problem: crimes by normal citizens.

When normal citizens form battalions of twenty or so people armed with assault rifles and wearing body armor and burst into people's houses and slaughter them, and then get away with it because no court would even think of letting them be prosecuted, then I'll agree with you.

The police are more dangerous than other criminals because they have the weapons, the armor, access to private data and conversations, and zero accountability in the court system. Not even Al Capone was as much of a danger to society as the police today.

Dan8267 says

form battalions of twenty or so people armed with assault rifles and wearing body armor

It is not the intent of the police to fight fair. The police are to overpower the criminals so much that they can't possibly fight back. This serves the greater good and is in the best interests of the majority, the law abiding citizens. Once society starts catering to negative minorities it collapses.

Very few serve serious prison time for anything except class A felonies. The criminal elements get far too many chances at leading a normal life in my opinion. They *always* commit more crimes. We could eliminate these law breakers from our society but it would have a disparate impact on blacks, therefore it is politically unacceptable.

Normal people commit far more crimes than police. Your comparison is wrong.

foxmannumber1 says

The police are to overpower the criminals so much that they can't possibly fight back.

Which is exactly why they must be held accountable when they do kill innocents.

This is also exactly why the police should never be allowed to set foot on a private residence unless there is an immediate threat to live. And if they claim there is when there is not, they must be severely punished.

Only when mistakenly killing an innocent costs the police their own lives will the police take care not to mistakenly kill innocents. There has to be an incentive not to commit murder or other crimes, because obviously ethics isn't restraining police behavior.

The state should not be allowed to issue warrants for anything other than arresting violent criminals who have threatened lives via murder, rape, assault, or attempts at those things. The state should not be allowed to send police into private residencies for anything else. The negative consequences outweigh the benefits.

foxmannumber1 says

Normal people commit far more crimes than police. Your comparison is wrong.

As a liberal, I don't believe in the concept of a victimless crime. So I don't count the bullshit fake crimes of smoking pot and disorderly conduct. I wouldn't call wearing a cross a crime even if the state made it one. So why should I do the same for the drug war?

Furthermore, I stated

Dan8267 says

The police are more dangerous than other criminals because they have the weapons, the armor, access to private data and conversations, and zero accountability in the court system. Not even Al Capone was as much of a danger to society as the police today.

This is different from counting crimes. This is totaling the damage done by the criminals, cops or civilians. And the fact is, today more harm is done by cops than civilians because cops have more opportunity and less accountability.

Certainly by per capita, cops commit more real crimes than civilians. But worse than that, the effects of crimes done by cops is far worse because those crimes are sanctioned and legitimized by the state. That makes them exponentially worse than anything a civilian could do.

errc says

Meh?

Whatever happened to the old adage, we' rather have ten guilty men walk free, then have one innocent man wrongly shot to death by a brutally militant police state?

Did you really just rationalize someone being gunned down by police, for jaywalking?

Two cops were recently gunned down in Louisiana. It's a dangerous world out there and you now have cops with itchy trigger fingers. Don't break the law, and when you do, don't run away from them. It's as simple as that. Don't give them a reason to pull out their guns.

StoutFiles says

Don't break the law, and when you do, don't run away from them. It's as simple as that. Don't give them a reason to pull out their guns.

Sigh and we go around the world to give others freedom?

lostand confused says

Sigh and we go around the world to give others freedom?

We go around the world to protect our business interests. We don't care about anyone's freedom unless it helps us financially.

StoutFiles says

Don't break the law

So it's against the law to answer a weird knock on your door in the early hours with a firearm? Even when the knockers won't identify themselves?

Didn't know that.

StoutFiles says

Don't break the law, and when you do, don't run away from them. It's as simple as that.

Andrew Scott id not break the law and did not run away. Yet he was murdered by the cops. And he's hardly the first innocent person slain by police. Your theory is empirically wrong.

Hearing a knock on his door at 1:30 am, a perplexed Florida man answered the door to see what kind of unannounced visitors were outside. Holding a gun for security, 26-year old Andrew Scott was instantly shot dead by police after he opened the door.

StoutFiles says

Don't give them a reason to pull out their guns.

The police had their guns drawn already. And the police did not identify themselves as police. They shot the innocent man eight times as soon as he opened the door. Andrew did not have any time to even think about making any decisions.

errc says

Whatever happened to the old adage, we' rather have ten guilty men walk free, then have one innocent man wrongly shot to death by a brutally militant police state?

You're thinking of Jesus. The United States is a Christian nation, and Christians hate Jesus and everything that commie stands for.

thunderlips11 says

StoutFiles says

Don't break the law

So it's against the law to answer a weird knock on your door in the early hours with a firearm? Even when the knockers won't identify themselves?

Didn't know that.

If America is a nation of laws, the police must be charged with second degree murder and sentence according to Florida's 10-20-Life law. To do otherwise violates the 14th Amendment and completely invalidates the legitimacy of our court system.

Dan8267 says

StoutFiles says

Don't break the law, and when you do, don't run away from them. It's as simple as that.

Andrew Scott id not break the law and did not run away. Yet he was murdered by the cops. And he's hardly the first innocent person slain by police. Your theory is empirically wrong.

Hearing a knock on his door at 1:30 am, a perplexed Florida man answered the door to see what kind of unannounced visitors were outside. Holding a gun for security, 26-year old Andrew Scott was instantly shot dead by police after he opened the door.

StoutFiles says

Don't give them a reason to pull out their guns.

The police had their guns drawn already. And the police did not identify themselves as police. They shot the innocent man eight times as soon as he opened the door. Andrew did not have any time to even think about making any decisions.

I read the second story and not the first. Sucks for that guy. I would never open my door at 1:30 A.M., especially with a gun. You're asking for return fire from anyone you point it at. When you pull a gun on someone, expect them to run, beg, or fire back.

thunderlips11 says

So it's against the law to answer a weird knock on your door in the early hours with a firearm? Even when the knockers won't identify themselves?

Didn't know that.

Does support the old adage of "you're more likely to get yourself or a family member killed owning a gun than you are without one".

I read the second link and not the first. Sucks for that guy.

StoutFiles says

Sucks for that guy.

Yeah, nice sentiment.

What if it was your mother/daughter/son knocking and they needed help, but couldn't talk? Oops, you open the door at 8AM to go to work, and there they are.

This is silly excuse making.

Again, the cops were in control. They could have surrounded the place then used loudspeakers. They could have announced themselves when they knocked. Or any combination.

Instead, they acted all "Tactical", which is Bubba's favorite word. "Yeah, Hoss, check out me new SKS, just had it made tactical with a ghost sight and a new sling. Boy howdy, can't afford shoes for me kids but hoo-wee is this gun pritty.

Do you know they reject cops for the academy if they have too high an IQ?

foxmannumber1 says

The police are only human and just like the "victim", can't know who's on the other side of the door when they have reasonable suspicion that the violent criminal is inside.

Following that philosophy, everyone has the right to kill a cop because we have more than reasonable concern that they might shoot us first based on ample history. Therefore all cop killers should be exonerated.

Following the philosophy you laid out, if anyone, including a cop, even approaches you with a weapon, you have the right to kill him under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. I doubt the court systems will treat ordinary people exactly the same as cops, no more or less guilty.

Dan8267 says

everyone has the right to kill a cop because we have more than reasonable concern that they might shoot us first based on ample history.

I don't think the people want a true version of liberalism implemented.

Police have more rights than normal people. They are responsible for many more people than the average citizen. They are allowed to make a few mistakes if their actions were done in good faith to protect far more people. This "no identify/guy with gun in his home" case is one of those situations.

Only the insane don't realize that police do far more good than bad. I am glad the police exist to protect me from the largest criminal element in the US, the black male aged 13-49.

StoutFiles says

thunderlips11 says

So it's against the law to answer a weird knock on your door in the early hours with a firearm? Even when the knockers won't identify themselves?

Didn't know that.

Does support the old adage of "you're more likely to get yourself or a family member killed owning a gun than you are without one".

I read the second link and not the first. Sucks for that guy.

I didn't know that was an adage. Sucks for that guy?

I figured you hadn't taken the time to read the story the OP linked. Think of what you are saying here, now that you're able to put your words in context. You ought have a healthy fear of minimalizing these types of actions.

"Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit"

foxmannumber1 says

Police have more rights than normal people.

Says Who? BTW, Cops are civilians, not military. So when a cop is calling a person a civilian, they are calling the kettle black.

foxmannumber1 says

Police have more rights than normal people. They are responsible for many more people than the average citizen. They are allowed to make a few mistakes if their actions were done in good faith to protect far more people. This "no identify/guy with gun in his home" case is one of those situations.

Not according to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Either we're all equal under law or we're not.

Where do the police get their rights? It's from the state. Where does the state get its rights? It's from the people. If I don't have the right to murder you, then I can't give Bob the right to murder you. I can't give to Bob what I do not possess.

Similarly, we the people don't have the right to murder. Therefore, we the people can't give that right to the state, and the state cannot give that right to police.

Either you believe that state power is derived from the people and therefore the state and its agents cannot have any rights that the people don't, or you believe that the state does not derive its power from the people. And if the later is true, then you disagree with the very founding principles of this nation.