Aurora Police Defend ‘Stand Down’ Orders; Twice Walked Away From Arresting Man Who Terrorized Apartment Residents

[Terminal Blue]

And yes, the cops did present it as binary. The article says: " Parker also explained his belief that had police taken more aggressive action and tried to take Thompson into custody, it could have led to the use of deadly force.

Are those the only options?

You literally just drive away and leave someone alone, or you murder them with bullets. Those are the only options? Because that seems like a problem unto itself.

If Thompson appeared delusional, why didn't they call mental health services? I mean, we know the answer to that one but it's worth asking anyway. Why didn't they call in someone with crisis intervention training? Why didn't they stay on the scene to make sure the situation didn't escalate? Heck, if they needed to make the arrest but were concerned about the risk of violence, why didn't they call in more cops so they could make the arrest safely?

You're acting as if this is some kind of self-own by protesters, when in fact it's kind of a self-own on you. You're effectively admitting that the police are useless. That they're totally incapable of handling the very situations you seem to believe we need them for without randomly murdering people, and yet you continue to defend them. It's almost like you see the police murdering people as the actual function of police, and not a failure.

 

[SupahEwok]

The police did good here by not murdering the guy, but it's not good enough. Clearly they should have given over their weapons to the criminal and allowed him to execute them. Anything less is simply centrist liberal handwringing.

 

[happyninja42]

The police did good here by not murdering the guy, but it's not good enough. Clearly they should have given over their weapons to the criminal and allowed him to execute them. Anything less is simply centrist liberal handwringing.

You know, I'd like to assume you are being sarcastic with this comment, but in this year, I honestly can't make that assumption.

 

[Houseman]

Fine, replace "always" with "frequently" and my point still stands and is still valid.

So you don't think you can have an "honest discussion" with someone who "frequently" errs towards a side that you are in disagreement with?

And as to your second "point," hapyninja42 said exactly what I was going to say:

Like I asked him, do you have any evidence for that accusation?

Are those the only options?

They're supposed to be the ones with training and experience in dealing with these kinds of situations, so they're supposed to know best.

If we imagine a hypothetical world where the police are "reformed" and then they still end up making the exact same statement, would you believe them then?

You're effectively admitting that the police are useless and incapable of handling the very situations you seem to believe we need them for

They probably would have handled it just fine, if the officers weren't forced to change. Although, when they end up killing the guy in self-defense, people would still call it "murder".

 

[Baffle]

They probably would have handled it just fine, if the officers weren't forced to change. Although, when they end up killing the guy in self-defense, people would still call it "murder".

Evidence for these statements?

 

[Houseman]

Evidence for these statements?

Sorry, I don't see the need to give evidence for a "probably" claim, and a future hypothetical "would" statement.
Feel free to not be pursuaded.

 

[Baffle]

Sorry, I don't see the need to give evidence for a "probably" claim, and a future hypothetical "would" statement.
Feel free to not be pursuaded.

Ah, so it's just a gut feeling you've got. I see,

 

[Elijin]

In todays news:
Violent white(ish?) criminal survives altercation with police on two seperate occasions. Apologists still unsure on the problem.

 

[dreng3]

They're supposed to be the ones with training and experience in dealing with these kinds of situations, so they're supposed to know best.

If we imagine a hypothetical world where the police are "reformed" and then they still end up making the exact same statement, would you believe them then?

If there was comprehensive police reform they wouldn't make the exact same statement, they would have dealt with the situation as professionals.It is a dishonest argument. "If we trained them to be competent but they were still incompetent would you be okay with it then?" Heck no, I'd question why they were still incompetent.
And various US police forces have in recent times demonstrated that even though they are supposed to know best they actually don't, and there are no consequences for that.

I mean, honestly, how many cops, without overwhelming fascistic tendencies or strong complexes in regards to power, do you think feel proud and happy about the work they do? I don't think the number is all that high, I think a lot of police would like to have the respect of the public, not be feared, I think a lot of police would like to be seen as the good guys by more than just a fairly limited subset of the population.
Reform would help police as much as it would citizens, police officers would, ideally, be able to say that they protected and served, that they were a cornerstone of society.

 

[Terminal Blue]

They're supposed to be the ones with training and experience in dealing with these kinds of situations, so they're supposed to know best.

If we imagine a hypothetical world where the police are "reformed" and then they still end up making the exact same statement, would you believe them then?

Police in the UK don't even carry guns most of the time. Until recently, they didn't carry tasers (and not all officers carry tasers). There has been talk for some time of phasing out batons because of concerns over their effectiveness relative to the risk of injury.

I think I've made no secret of my dislike for the institution of policing or my distrust for the people who do it. Police in the UK have problems, police in the UK are racist, people (especially black people) have been murdered by UK police. But the idea that you can't safely resolve a situation involving someone armed with a golf club without shooting them dead is kind of ludicrous, even by the standards of policing as it exists.

Your system is broken even by the standards of the broken system we have here.

They probably would have handled it just fine, if the officers weren't forced to change.

Again, this is only true if you assume murdering someone is "handling it fine".

 

[Houseman]

If there was comprehensive police reform they wouldn't make the exact same statement, they would have dealt with the situation as professionals

How would that work, exactly?

It seems that you're envisioning some kind of scenario where police officers are always able to harmlessly arrest people, without violence, 100% of the time. I don't think such a thing is realistic.

If you want police to still be able to use violence, even just as a last resort, they will inevitably end up harming or killing people, sometimes even accidentally or when the situation doesn't warrant it. That's unavoidable.

Unless of course, they end up just leaving, as they did here.
So which is it? Do you want some casualties, and police still doing their job, or no casualties, and police not doing their job?

But the idea that you can't safely resolve a situation involving someone armed with a golf club without shooting them dead is kind of ludicrous

To be fair, the full quote is: "Parker also explained his belief that had police taken more aggressive action and tried to take Thompson into custody, it could have led to the use of deadly force. He said escalation could have led to Thompson being hurt or killed and officers potentially being injured."

"Killed" is only one of the possible outcomes. Everyone here seems to be reading this as "we either walk away or we shoot them dead!"

 

[Revnak]

If we’re gonna place ourselves on sides of an insane binary “I will not rest until cops kill nobody” is a side I would prefer to be in compared to “I will not rest until cops kill everyone.” I am honestly quite comfortable with this.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Assuming you're talking about the two cops shot by a pedestrian, yes, that was excessive on the shooter's part for a multitude of reasons, the foremost being attempted and successful murder; those cops didn't deserve that. The existence of bad cops and the desire for police reform that weeds them out and properly trains and equips good cops to do their job the right way does not exonerate criminals or criminal activity. In fact, had those officers been in any position to return fire and kill that man, that would have been well within their right and not excessive at all. See? It's possible to be anti-bad cop and anti-criminal at the same time; most rational people are.

I meant, do you think the cops were using excessive force?

You...are aware that excessive force is an actual concept used in law and law enforcement, are you not? There's no solid line for it because - as implied by the name - what constitutes excessive force varies based on the amount of force the situation warranted. However, it can adequately be summed up as being "violent acts beyond what a reasonable third party would recognize as necessary to safely end the situation".

For instance: Let's say that you had a streaker. Is chasing after and tackling the streaker unnecessarily violent? Not really. What if the chaser started beating up the streaker after tackling him. Yes. That would be excessive force. What about if instead of chasing the streaker they opted to shoot them instead? Yes. A reasonable third party would say that absolutely that was more force than the situation required. What if our streaker was running at someone while brandishing a butcher knife? In those circumstances, lethal force would be warranted as a means of protecting someone who a reasonable third party would assume was in life-threatening danger.

This is not a difficult concept so long as you avoid overly simplistic and/or tribalistic thinking. It boils down to two questions: "What was the amount of force that the situation warranted" and "what was the amount of force applied?" If the answers to the two questions are markedly different, then the situation was handled poorly.

Yes of course I'm aware of that. I am asking for them to define their terms.

 

[SupahEwok]

You know, I'd like to assume you are being sarcastic with this comment, but in this year, I honestly can't make that assumption.

When you play the game of Houseman, you troll or you are trolled. There is no middle ground.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Which incidents?



Force isn't off the table. Nobody has been arguing that the police must never, in any circumstances, use any force. Criticism and protest have been provoked by excessive and/or misdirected force: lethal choke-holds used against nonviolent suspects; gunfire directed towards people who weren't suspects at all; violence used before any other approaches were attempted or before the police had identified themselves.

From the comments I saw on the Tulsa video, yes they do. People think that the mere use of force by police to enforce the law is wrong in and of itself.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This thread is irredeemably stupid even at face value because the police force in this case still exists and would be there to threaten punishment against citizens who took the matter into their own hands. It's not a good argument against anything.

 

[dreng3]

How would that work, exactly?

It seems that you're envisioning some kind of scenario where police officers are always able to harmlessly arrest people, without violence, 100% of the time. I don't think such a thing is realistic.

If you want police to still be able to use violence, even just as a last resort, they will inevitably end up harming or killing people, sometimes even accidentally or when the situation doesn't warrant it. That's unavoidable.

Unless of course, they end up just leaving, as they did here.
So which is it? Do you want some casualties, and police still doing their job, or no casualties, and police not doing their job?

I was responding to your question, which was, and I paraphrase, "If we reformed the police and they made the same decision in this situation would you trust them?" And no, I would not, because their response would be incorrect. This situation is one they should have resolved by detaining the man in question. How they would go about that is a different matter. I wouldn't think that the situation warranted weapons drawn, unless they came upon him waving that golf club around.
Perhaps asking him to settle down and be cuffed and taken into custody voluntarily would be a good first step. If that didn't work, physically subdue him without kneeling on his back for ten minutes. If that doesn't work, or he seems to be armed with a weapon that prevents approach, use a taser. Only when these options are infeasible should the police unholster their weapons. And even then they should only intimidate and not shoot unless the man in question shows himself to be an actual threat to an armed officer.

Now, if they attempted to subdue him physically and sadly they slipped and the man in question hit his head on the way down causing trauma that would be an accident, not a deliberate choice to use excess force. Accidents happen, ideally they shouldn't but they do, in that situation the officer in question should be investigated and the investigators should consider whether the response that lead to the accident was appropriate. And the officer or department can still be sued in civil court.

If the officer uses force and a complaint is leveled there should be an investigation and the officer should be allowed to offer a defense and an analysis of why the situation warranted force, which the investigators will the consider and either agree or disagree with. If they disagree, the officer suffers disciplinary measures and criminal charges, if they agree with the defense the officer returns to work.

Furthermore, the binary you set up is predicated on the police presently acting in good faith, which doesn't seem the case these days. I want the police to do their jobs, and I am willing to accept that casualties can occur, but when one does there must be serious investigation and actual consequences.
In this case the man was clearly breaking the law and the police should have intervened, they did not, and as such they did not do their job.

William Blackstone famously said that it is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent suffer, that's the attitude I have to policing, err on the side of caution when using force.

 

[Terminal Blue]

From the comments I saw on the Tulsa video, yes they do. People think that the mere use of force by police to enforce the law is wrong in and of itself.

It is.

But you misunderstand why. The problem is not that the use of force in and of itself is inherent wrong, that would preclude the very possibility of direct action. The problem is that the police are a fundamentally authoritarian institution. They are not accountable to you, they do not have any responsibilities towards you, they are not subject to any meaningful form of civilian oversight or the consent of the population. They are uniformed paramilitaries whose job is, among other things, to politically suppress opposition to the government by the people they claim to be "protecting". Police, in the form they do now, should not exist in a free society.

That does not mean that the use of force to protect people from crime or antisocial behaviour should not exist, it means that the use of force should be accountable, transparent and subject to civilian oversight. It means that the use of force should be minimised and proportional to the threat posed.

I'm also going to point out that choosing not to use force is not necessarily the same thing as getting in your car and driving away from a situation that could (and did) very easily turn dangerous. I don't know, maybe some black kid was about to smoke weed a few blocks over and needed to be sent to jail at once, but the police could have backed off but remained on the scene to make sure things calmed down or to gather intelligence on the situation that might help to make a more informed decision. That is literally a thing they can do.

 

[Houseman]

If the officer uses force and a complaint is leveled there should be an investigation and the officer should be allowed to offer a defense and an analysis of why the situation warranted force, which the investigators will the consider and either agree or disagree with. If they disagree, the officer suffers disciplinary measures and criminal charges, if they agree with the defense the officer returns to work.

I mean, that's what happens now, right? What's the difference?

It seems that the only difference between the ideal scenario you submit, and today's reality (not counting this example where they just left) , is that you don't think the officers are acting in good faith. When they kill someone, investigate, and declare themselves innocent, citizens riot.

Terminal Blue's idea of citizen oversight should fix this problem

 

[Revnak]

I mean, that's what happens now, right? What's the difference?

It seems that the only difference between the ideal scenario you submit, and today's reality (not counting this example where they just left) , is that you don't think the officers are acting in good faith. When they kill someone, investigate, and declare themselves innocent, citizens riot.

Terminal Blue's idea of citizen oversight should fix this problem

Yes, clearly the fact that American police are so exceptionally violent when compared to those of other first world countries is just a pure statistical anomaly. There is no reality, only ideals and arguments, and the best ideals and arguments win.