NationStates Jolt Archive

Verdict is in for the cop accused. He got off.

Most of you probably haven't heard of this case so I'll fill you in on what's been going down in my homestate. A cop shoots a kid 8 times at the end of a short foot chase because he said the kid was armed and dangerous. Part of the chase was caught on a security camera. I saw the footage, as did several other people, and the kid didn't appear to be armed during that clip. Maybe the resolution was too low. Maybe he ditched the gun just before he entered the frame and then somehow picked it up again after. That must be what the jury believed because they cleared the cop of any wrongdoing.

I dunno, 8 shots seems a little excessive to me. And if my encounters with the Minneapolis PD are any indication of how most of them act then I wouldn't put perjury and planting evidence past them.

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/46389322.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycU9PhDcUU

What do you do when you encounter excessive force and blatant police brutality? Call the cops?

I've basically taken to not trusting anyone in a police uniform as far as I can throw them. It takes a particular character to want to become a police officer, and I'd prefer not to associate.

Anyways in my judgement, entirely unrelated to any evidence, the cop probably acted out of honest fear, and only realised afterwards that it was all in his head. Then the usual machine started working on clearing him. Afterall, that kid shouldn't have been running to start with, right?

Might have had something to do with the squad car almost running over a few of the kids.

Or he had the gun in his pocket/tucked in his jeans and drew it just before he got shot.
You would need evidence of the plant to convict the police officer. With a camera scanning the area you would figure there would be some video of the officer going back to his car and getting the weapon to plant.
Or residents looking out their window at the shooting seeing the officer doing that.

Apparently fleeing is enough cause to use deadly force. Over here you don't even have to be fleeing--in fact, you can be unarmed and pinned down on your stomach, and deadly force is still acceptable!

The police officer should have got back up before approaching the kid. Chases lead to an adrenaline rush and they both start reacting in ways they shouldn't.

The police officer should have got back up before approaching the kid. Chases lead to an adrenaline rush and they both start reacting in ways they shouldn't.

Part of the reason I'm firmly convinced that police officers, at least in the UK where guns are relatively uncommon, should not be routinely armed with firearms.

Luckily at last survey about 85% of police agreed.

The best plan is to throw your damm hands in the air then call a damm laywer. (those lawyers in Hell have never won a case you know)
:p

Sounds like the cause of death was: "not enough sense to live."

The best plan is to throw your damm hands in the air then call a damm laywer. (those lawyers in Hell have never won a case you know)
:p

Sounds like the cause of death was: "not enough sense to live."

As opposed to "cops are egomaniacs with a license to kill."

What do you do when you encounter excessive force and blatant police brutality? Call the cops?

Well, here in Italy, we call the OTHER police force.
To file a complaint against the Polizia di Stato, we call the Carabinieri, and vice-versa.

As opposed to "cops are egomaniacs with a license to kill."

Yes they certainly are. It seems like it can be nerve racking work. It's best to let an attorney handle it after everybody has calmed down. Only an idiot would make any kind of herky-jerky move when the cops say "STOP!!!"

Lawyer = freedom and maybe a little bit of change if the cop acted like a fool.

Bullets = hurts like hell.

Yes they certainly are. It seems like it can be nerve racking work. It's best to let an attorney handle it after everybody has calmed down. Only an idiot would make any kind of herky-jerky move when the cops say "STOP!!!"

Lawyer = freedom and maybe a little bit of change if the cop acted like a fool.

Bullets = hurts like hell.

That totally excuses cops using deadly force without just cause.

Yes they certainly are. It seems like it can be nerve racking work. It's best to let an attorney handle it after everybody has calmed down. Only an idiot would make any kind of herky-jerky move when the cops say "STOP!!!"

Lawyer = freedom and maybe a little bit of change if the cop acted like a fool.

Bullets = hurts like hell.

So the cops should be cut some slack because they get an adrenaline rush and forget their training and start shooting at unarmed people, but the suspects get no slack for possibly freaking out a little and not thinking everything through when someone's pointing a gun in their faces?

So the cops should be cut some slack because they get an adrenaline rush and forget their training and start shooting at unarmed people, but the suspects get no slack for possibly freaking out a little and not thinking everything through when someone's pointing a gun in their faces?

Yeah, if getting freaked and running away from the cops is stupid then what do you call getting freaked and shooting the guy you're chasing?

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Jury accepted the Police argument, so there would have to be either corroborating evidence or at the least no contradicting evidence. As for the level of force, Police are generally trained to use lethal force as a last resort, but when using it to ensure the target ceases to be a threat. I can fire off eight rounds from an automatic, aimed, in under five seconds, and I don't consider myself a good shot. Remember that once lethal force is employed, the object is to kill.

That totally excuses cops using deadly force without just cause.

No. "That" does not! What totally excuses the cops are the courts which is what happened in this case. You just dont want to go into what's cause and what's just with a gun pointed at you.

So, let's see, we have a person that was found with a gun, the testimony of two officers that the person in question did have a gun and they felt threatened by it, and responded with deadly force in reaction to the expectation of deadly force.

The other side charged that they had planted a gun and covered up evidence, but had no proof that either had occurred.

Therefore, the police officers involved got off.

Aren't we supposed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? I thought that was the law around these parts.


Also, the people in this thread who believe all cops are bad people, you are sadly mistaken, and should really consider what it would actually be like if all police really WERE bad people. This nation would be in much much worse shape than it's in.

Just think about that for a while, if every cop killed for fun, covered up evidence, lied under oath, and was a general bastard.

Think about what it would be like here, and tell me if it's *really* like that. Hint: if you say yes, you're hallucinating.

I want to make it very clear that I don't just hate cops. I recognize that a police force is needed in a large society to enforce the law. That law and those police are supposed to protect people from one another. When the Minneapolis PD does something like award themselves medals for shooting up the home of an innocent family and fail to clean up the urine-soaked gang-infested streets of the city they are charged with defending it makes some people like myself a little nervous and agitated.

I don't trust most of the MPD because of stories like this. Because every year it seems that a few of their officers does something stupid and the rest of the Department protects them. Cops seldom answer to anyone for anything they do. It's not about justice anymore, it's about fines and convictions.

I think the vast majority of police officers are good, honest people trying to do a difficult job. I also think that the power given to them has to be tempered with harsh consequences if that power is abused.

I know it's not a perfect analogy, but I'm going to use what I know: I'm a teacher. I'm entrusted with the lives of 20 tiny beings every day. I have to teach them, but more than that, I have to keep them safe. I am a powerful authority figure for them (they're only six, they still adore me). If I screw up in my job and it leads to a child getting hurt, I need to be held accountable. If I use my position of authority to hurt them (physically, mentally, sexually, etc.), I need to be held accountable.

Of course I deserve my day in court. And of course, like with the police, baseless accusations can be and are leveled. That's why an incredible degree of transparency is necessary in both jobs. Police shouldn't be sheltered from charges of abuse or tampering just because they're likely to come up; they should conduct themselves in a way that is above repute, following procedures and covering their asses. And if they can't answer the questions that arise, the department should damn well be the first ones to investigate it.

It's tiresome. It seems unfair. It makes the whole machine less efficient. But it's just too serious to take any other course.

My mouse pad is covered in wine and the mouse still works perfectly! I will be buried with this mouse in my right hand, I swear my will thus!

So, let's see, we have a person that was found with a gun, the testimony of two officers that the person in question did have a gun and they felt threatened by it, and responded with deadly force in reaction to the expectation of deadly force.

The other side charged that they had planted a gun and covered up evidence, but had no proof that either had occurred.

Therefore, the police officers involved got off.

Aren't we supposed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? I thought that was the law around these parts.


Also, the people in this thread who believe all cops are bad people, you are sadly mistaken, and should really consider what it would actually be like if all police really WERE bad people. This nation would be in much much worse shape than it's in.

Just think about that for a while, if every cop killed for fun, covered up evidence, lied under oath, and was a general bastard.

Think about what it would be like here, and tell me if it's *really* like that. Hint: if you say yes, you're hallucinating.
^ this ^