Is police brutality increasing? 12 recent shocking examples from AlterNet:
http://www.alternet.org/police-brutalit … 98&t=7
In before right-wingers claim they were asking for it.
How many police officers where killed in the line of duty in the US last year?
49 (All deaths in the line of duty:
Line of Duty Deaths: 49
Aircraft accident: 1
Automobile accident: 10
Heart attack: 8
Motorcycle accident: 2
Struck by vehicle: 2
Training accident: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 1
Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year#ixzz2Vek3EuQH
Police Brutality Cases in the U.S.by state (Incomplete List)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ca … ted_States
So how many brutality cases were proven last year in the US?
Yup, cops are just awful human beings; check this out:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=63 … mp;theater
Actually cops are a cross-section of all human beings, and you're going to get your share of bad ones, just like with anyone else. The incidence of brutality probably isn't rising; it's that we're catching them now because of official surveillance equipment and citizen-operated video cameras. The good news is that at least in some cases, these abusive cops are being fired.
For shame, Ralph. Posting a dozen half stories, incomplete and with little to no facts, and calling them "shocking" while insinuating they show police violence is increasing. You should start a talk show, or maybe partner with Limbaugh.
As far as I'm concerned, criminality is more prevalent in the law enforcement community (cops, judges, prisons) than it is in the general population. I base this on personal experience and what I read in the newspapers and a wide variety of other sources and see on television.
I merely asked the question, "Is police violence increasing." The profession attracts a certain percentage of bullies and racists and racist bullies, in my opinion.
The profession attracts? Or are they being recruited for future gestapo?
I got pulled over by a cop about 4 years ago. No ticket, he thought I was talking on my cell phone. I politely asked his age: 20 and I know from public records a new cop here makes about 14 dollars an hour, carries a gun and drives a cruiser. I suppose that is a little higher age than soldiers in war average.
I've often thought there should be a minimum age requirement for police. At least 35 years old before they can carry a gun along with very strict, psychological high standards. I have scars older than 20 years. A 20 year old cannot make life and death decisions coupled with the wisdom that is only acquired through length of life. Citizen's lives are in the balance: elderly, bystanders, children, people that are emotionally distraught, etc, and the person that holds their lives in the balance could have been watching cartoons and drinking Nestle Quick, 5 years prior. That to me is concerning,
Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with you - I think the profession attracts, as PhoenixV mentions.
I merely comment on a bunch of unsupported half finished stories being called "shocking" while insinuating that a mother's claims her son did nothing wrong while being abused from police are evidence of police brutality. There's nothing shocking at all that a mother will defend her child against those nasty police; we see such stories every day. And while there are exceptions it almost always ends up that the child was doing something wrong; that the cops had both a reason and obligation to act as they did.
I am so shocked at these stories as related by "victims" and their relatives. Of course the victims all being so innocent. I noted no relation of the conviction rate of the victims or followup on suspensions/probation and firings of any wrong doing cop. What to we have? 5 million in jail and 5 million law enforcement personnel. Let us see, and each cop making at least two "contacts" a day? Get back to me on percentages.
Do not get me wrong, on two occasions as a youth I was whooped upon and jailed and then released without charges as a youth. I was known, due to sports, but I also wrote and distributed an underground newspaper --- with forbidden information back then --- clean needles, contraceptives, petitions for all kinds of things, family planning, locations for anti-war demonstrations. And I wore my hair pretty wild for a backwater town.
But I was in their face and calling them "pigs", because they were. A broken nose and red knuckles proved I fought back. So my arrests,,,, were a badge of honor, and I taunted them to keep me longer and get me a lawyer!! I sure as hell never claimed innocence as a defense, I claimed power to the people.
And as for the 14 year old with a pit bull he calls fluffy the puppy -- I was 14 when I hit my first cop and we all had dogs that would protect us from anyone in uniform.
Police officers today are not the friendly neighborhood cops of yesterday. Officers today expect immediate obedience to a command, and any resistance will result in force, no matter who you are. That's why upset little old ladies who would have been gently tolerated yesterday, are often tasered today.
The new officer is trained to take command and expects immediate obedience from a citizen, and a citizen has no rights at all during the situation. That's what we saw in the Boston neighborhood as cops were searching for the Marathon bomber. People were ordered out of their homes by yelling and shoving officers, with no regard at all for their rights as American citizens. That would not have happened a few decades ago. I don't think it should be happening today.
I understand the reasoning behind it, but I'm not at all sure I agree. Innocent American citizens should still be respected by police officers, even if it means adding a little danger to the job.
I'm not sure I agree, either, but I do think you vastly minimize that "adding a little danger" bit.
We lost a cop near me a while back - blown away while walking up to a traffic stop. It's real easy to second guess these cops when they're not you, not [/i] your[/i] father or your spouse. Were my spouse a traffic cop now, I would almost demand that she have a weapon in hand when walking to a stopped car.
Disobedience, hands curled into fists, pit bulls, etc. look a little different to cops than to parents. Cops that have likely been attacked before in the line of duty.
Police work is dangerous, but I don't think we should be forced to give up our rights as citizens for a false sense of security for police officers. As you point out, criminals don't obey such restrictions anyway, which is why your unfortunate police officer example was gunned down.
I don't see any false sense of security in having someone in handcuffs, or face down on the ground, vs standing in front of the cop with their hands up.
Problem is that there is always a line. Citizens want it way down there at the bottom, while still providing protection, and cops want it at the top with as little chance as possible of being hurt themselves. As with everything else in life the truth is that it needs to be somewhere in between
"I don't see any false sense of security in having someone in handcuffs, or face down on the ground, vs standing in front of the cop with their hands up."
If you're talking about an innocent citizen, then I see a huge violation of civil rights. If you're talking about a suspected criminal, then I have no objection.
The comment concerns a sense of security, safety for the cop, not civil rights.
As innocence or guilt can only be determined by a court such knowledge is impossible to have during an arrest or other police altercation. To declare that because it hasn't been to trial means the police cannot protect themselves is just wrong.
And to declare that only you (or other citizen) has a right to determine the validity of police suspicion is just as wrong. I don't know that I've ever seen any police brutality where the police had no reason to suspect that either a crime had been or soon might be committed.
Police should not use more force than necessary considering the circumstances including the nature of the crime suspected, the conduct of the suspect and so forth. Claims of brutality usually involve excessive force including fire arms, tasers, billy clubs, etc. A suspect's remark interpreted by a policeman as disrespectful is no excuse for manhandling, hitting, kicking, let alone, shooting a suspect.
I have personally witnessed law enforcement stomping on a mans head with his boots as hard as he could, who was already unconscious (thank God, for that I guess) and handcuffed behind his back. Other law enforcement were there who witnessed it and didn't even blink and eye and it was just obviously business as usual. I said and did absolutely nothing out of fear for my life.
If true, although there are some pretty obvious questions, I think I'd be for finding a different town. Long time resident or not, it's time to move.
If true? LOL. What would you know about honesty?
What would you know about it?
How do you know the cop stomped "as hard as he could"? Did you take tests of his maximum kick force and compare it to damage to the victims head? Did the cop jump into the air, coming down with both feet (and falling on his a$$ as a result)?
How do you know the person was unconscious? Did you run over and try to revive him while the cop stood ready, foot drawn back, waiting for you to verify it?
Did you watch the eyes of each other policeman for blinking? Did you follow them and listen to any and all conversation between them all the way back to the station? Did you interview them to see if they felt it was "business as usual"?
That's the problem with these kinds of "reports" - the witness (you) doesn't really care if what they say is true or honest. The exaggerations make for a better story, so do it.
The only person that exaggerates is you. Constantly, in just this thread alone everyone has to remind you of relevance. Your posts are nothing but red herrings throughout. I could point them all out for you if you like?
Based upon my observation from 5 feet away, the victim the officer was stomping on was either unconscious or dead. I do not have to know the irrelevant price of tea in china or the tensile strength of shoelaces to witness a man, laying face down, handcuffed behind his back, unresponsive to full force stomps to his head. The other law enforcement that was there did not even blink.
Again, from your own post:
"stomping on a mans head with his boots as hard as he could" (bolding added). In addition, you have now indicated that there was more than one stomp; seems to me that multiple "full force" stomps will almost certainly break a neck. Not necessarily so with and easy kick or even a hard one, but "full force" multiple kicks? Do you retract the bolded part or do you offer your tests taken to substantiate the claim as true?
"who was already unconscious". Did the kick render the victim unconscious or were your quick observations superior to every doctor on the planet, who cannot determine death, let alone mere unconsciousness, without a physical examination?
your first post indicated that there was more than one other cop that did not blink; now it is just one. A typo ("were" should be "was") or an exaggeration you're now backing off from?
Keep in mind that I do not doubt your observations (I did say it was time to leave town), just your interpretation and exaggeration of them. You have also said you were in fear for your life; such a witness is generally a very poor one. People tend to change what they saw when in a highly emotional state of mind. The exaggerate, they add details that weren't there and they subtly change their interpretation of events to match what they think happened.
You are a nit picker apologist for brutal, police bullies.
Not to mention he was not there. I was. So, wilderness cannot speak intelligently on the matter. Its not my nature to embellish. I saw what I saw. I find his red herrings amusing, when they do not attack my character. Perhaps he will tell us another irrelevant story of how someone in his neighborhood helped a little elderly lady across the street and somehow that "makes it all okay".
I apologize if it seems I've attacked your character; I've plainly stated that "embellishing" eyewitness stories is extremely common. As common as it is unintentional - one has only to listen to half dozen eyewitnesses sworn to tell the truth to understand that. It is not an aspersion on your character to fall into the same trap that thousands of others do each day.
My sole point was, and is, that when speaking ill of another person (the cops in your example) it is incumbent on you to take extreme care to report ONLY the truth that you know. Most people don't, but again, that does not mean that you should fall into the same trap.
No, Ralph, I'm a nit picker for truth as opposed to blown up accusations that all too often are found to be completely false.
I've read the forums over the past few years, watching this happen over and over and over. Claims and insinuations are made in an effort to stir emotions and elicit reactions rather than provide factual information. The more I see it done, the more I detest it. The internet has given us the ability to ignite the mob online while hiding behind a keyboard, people are increasingly swallowing it, and that is actually more disturbing to me than the isolated case of police brutality.
We are becoming a nation of people uncaring of justice or truth. We want what we want and all too often that is merely to troll the country (or world) with baseless, but highly emotional, claims of wrongdoing by someone.
"When we are weak then and only then can government be stronger. When we become victims of a state, even a state of being, all that follows is our fault. We must be the power of our "nation", for we are we." ed 2009
Very true. Ironic that even now we intentionally weaken ourselves by taking away guns, isn't it? And demand more every day in the form of a nanny state - we can't take of ourselves and so want the government to do it for us. Building that ever stronger government while weakening the individual.
We must not weaken ourselves to a point that we rely on "rights". We must know ourselves and be strong in that. "We don't need no stinking badges". If we shuck our rights for what is right, then we deserve right. If we stop accepting our conduct as good because we did it, then we begin to conduct ourselves as good. Police do not intrude on a righteous man, but a man who appears unrighteous by doing nothing, is not to be trusted.
Your are clearly inclined to be skeptical of factual accounts of police brutality and inclined to defend the police however off base they are. The fact that a conviction may not have occurred, or that the object of brutality was a criminal, does not mean that the police were blameless. The Rodney King incident is a good example. Police have no business brutalizing any citizen, criminal or not. Convicting a policeman is very difficult. The criminal justice system has a strong tendency to protect it's own.
You're right - I'm extremely skeptical of "factual accounts" that very clearly give only one side of the story. In my experience they are almost always designed and presented in such a way as to give a false impression of what the facts actually are. Example - the media's doctored tape of Zimmerman, plainly showing his racist tendencies. Remember that one?
"The fact that a conviction may not have occurred, or that the object of brutality was a criminal, does not mean that the police were blameless"
Doesn't mean the cops are to be blamed, either, now does it? But it seems that that's always how it is portrayed; somebody got into an altercation with the cops, got hurt and it is therefore the cops fault.
No, convicting a cop is extremely easy. At least in the public's eyes - all you have to do is put up a carefully edited video or audio recording and the public automatically assumes it's "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Or even, as we so often see in these forums, simply a claim with some choice, highly connotative, adjectives. It gets a little harder in a courtroom to prove anything, but who cares? What really matters anymore is public opinion, from a public that seldom gives a rat's a$$ about facts or truth because it's too hard to work through the lies and insinuations to get at the truth.
Perhaps I did not see what I saw? Maybe the guy was just "pretending to be unconscious". Maybe the law enforcement personnel weren't wearing boots but instead was wearing a marshmallow tied to his foot and it was covered in black boot polish and he was just pretending to stomp on the handcuffed man laying face down pretending to be unconscious? Handcuffed is not too connotative an adjective for ya, is it? Maybe the guy wasn't unconscious at all? Maybe the cop was not stomping his head? Maybe, now just maybe, indulge me a moment here, the man was allowing the officer to use his head as a footstool because he knew his feet were tired from walking a beat? Clearly only someone that is head of the Mayo Clinic and also teaches Classical mechanics at Cambridge, can even make these determinations, Correct?
Nah, it was a cop who stomped ( as hard as he could based upon my understanding of mass, momentum and acceleration etc) a handcuffed mans head who was clearly unresponsive while another cop looked on and other cops walked by.
Now if I wanted to embellish or sensationalize it, I would have added that the cops in that particular instance that I personally witnessed from 5 feet away, were vicious animals far worse than any bogus check writers or non-compliant seat belt wearers, that should have been arrested and charged with attempted murder. But its not my nature to embellish or speculate various conclusions, I just state the facts.
"Doesn't mean the cops are to be blamed, either, now does it? But it seems that that's always how it is portrayed; somebody got into an altercation with the cops, got hurt and it is therefore the cops fault."
Just watching the cops beating and kicking Rodney King while he was handcuffed behind his back was enough for me. You apparently think it was okay and excuse the incident because he was a not so bright, disreputable character fleeing from the police. The fact that the police were not convicted in a right wing venue means nothing as far as I'm concerned.
My recollection is that the trial was moved to Simi Valley, CA, which definitely is a right wing venue. Do you think the cops' behavior was okay?
Here's what Wikipedia has on the trials of the policemen:
Four of the police officers from the LAPD who engaged in the incident were charged in Los Angeles County Superior Court with assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force for their conduct during the incident. After a judicial finding that a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled in Los Angeles County, the case was given a change of venue to the city of Simi Valley, in Ventura County, where they were tried. On April 29, 1992, three of the four police officers, (Koon, Wind, and Briseno) were acquitted of all charges. The jury acquitted the fourth officer, (Powell), on the assault with a deadly weapon charge but failed to reach a verdict on the use of excessive force charge. The jury deadlocked at 8-4 in favor of acquittal.
The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed, and over two thousand were injured. The riots ended after soldiers from the United States Army National Guard, along with United States Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton, California, were called in to assist local authorities and quell the riots.
On August 4, 1992 a Federal Grand Jury after hearing evidence from federal prosecutors, indicted the four officers on charges of violating King's civil rights. The four men were put on trial on February 25, 1993 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California located in downtown Los Angeles. On April 16, 1993 the trial ended with two of the police officers, (Koon and Powell) found guilty, and subsequently imprisoned. The other two officers, (Wind and Briseno) were acquitted.
Was the Rodney King beating enough for you, Ralph, to determine that every cop on the planet is a brutal animal? Or just accept that charge whenever someone makes it of the cop that struck them? No evidence or other testimony needed?
"Was the Rodney King beating enough for you, Ralph, to determine that every cop on the planet is a brutal animal?"
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything of the kind. Actually, I think most policemen are decent people who work hard and do their difficult jobs as best they can. However, as I said before, some of them are bullies, racists and criminals who pin crimes on innocent people, beat up on innocent and guilty citizens, and so forth. You are the one who tries to excuse these bad cops.
If you think most cops are good employees, then I guess I just don't understand why you would ever take the unsupported word of a mother that her son did nothing wrong before being "handled" by police. Or present a story of cops shooting up a car as evidence of police brutality without ever researching it and finding out why it was done. I just don't understand taking unsupported claims as either truth or even much of a possibility - certainly not in accepting it as the only evidence possible.
As far as me excusing the cops, you'd best check again. I have done no such thing; the only thing I've supported is "Innocent until proven guilty"; something you seem to have forgotten. Not once have I supported anything like an excuse for a bad cop.
You claimed, erroneously, unless my memory fails, that the cops who beat up Rodney King were acquitted as if that made what they did okay. Perhaps it was someone else. I didn't take the time to go back and check. Some of the cases I cited were clearer than others. As I said previously, I recognize that there usually are two sides to every story. I certainly didn't say or imply that most cops are brutal.
Chris Rock puts it in perspective in this video
Your memory fails. The only mention I made of the King travesty was to ask if it proved, in your mind, that all cops are brutal.
We are in agreement, then - it is necessary to know all the facts rather than just one side of the story before knowing if claimed police "brutality" was a reasonable response to the "victims" activity or if it occurred at all.
Given that 9 out of ten of the cases in your OP gave just one side, you might consider doing a better job of showing both sides next time.
"Excessive". Excessive as defined by the victims mother or excessive as defined by the cop being attacked?
A local cop here shot an killed a kid (late teens as I recall) high on PCP and running towards the cop with an unloaded (at least the parent standing nearby said it was unloaded) WWII rifle. At about 10' away, the cop killed him.
Immediate claims of police brutality, of course - the local news had an absolute field day with it and you heard about it on every street corner. Why didn't he wait - he "knew" the gun was unloaded? It was only a kid - kids never hurt cops so why kill him? And so on, including public statements from the parent that their kid (high on PCP) would not and could not harm anyone.
What no one ever mentioned was that that gun had a fixed bayonet on it - that cop was less than 1/2 second from being skewered. Incredible restraint, beyond what I would have ever used, but still the cop was accused of "excessive" force.
So "excessive" is a pretty variable term, and neither the public nor friends or family of the victim seem to ever agree if it was actually excessive.
The problem with too much authority is well known:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Police powers, like all powers, must be limited; otherwise, we will have police brutality, which I think is the topic of this forum. If police can violate our civil rights at will and we are powerless to stop them, then we will have a police state.
Police are limited only by a vigilante society. All of the people mentioned as victims on this thread, were "victims" of their mentality long before the cops came. Hell the bystanders should have been helping not filming. This "poor me" welfare mentality is disgusting. If cops need to search your home, you should be showing them hiding places. Not whining.
Top Ten Police Brutality Cases
http://newsone.com/60771/gallery-top-10 … ity-cases/
Of the ten cases, not a single one indicates the cops in question were ever charged, let alone convicted, of improper behavior. Several, on the other hand, indicate that no charges were filed.
What police brutality? Apparently, from all indications given here, all the actions were justified, and certainly the link doesn't indicate that police brutality is increasing.
You apparently didn't read the descriptions of the cases. For example, this one:
"This Haitian immigrant won an $8.75 million lawsuit after he was arrested outside a Brooklyn nightclub. While in custody, police officers sodomized him with a plunger inside the police station’s bathroom."
Or this one:
"Undercover officers fired more than 50 bullets into Bell’s car while he was leaving his bachelor party at a Queens strip club in 2006. The 23-year-old and was killed and his two friends were seriously injured."
or this one:
"The death of this unarmed 19-year-old was the 15th African American killed by police in Cincinnati within five years. The incident started the 2001 Cincinnati riots and shed light on the issue of racial profiling."
The fact that a policeman wasn't convicted is virtually meaningless. The law enforcement community takes care of it's own unless forced to do otherwise.
I absolutely stand corrected - I don't understand how I missed that about the Haitian. I even noted to myself that the sodomization didn't sound right without at least charges being filed. You are absolutely correct.
Bell - no indication the cops were even charged, must less convicted of anything. Which is what I said.
The same for the 19 year old.
While you claim that "law enforcement community takes care of it's own unless forced to do otherwise" I don't see any evidence of that, either (although I often believe it to be true). The problem is that public opinion is an even less desired "judge". Either find a way to convict brutal cops or give up the case in other words. Letting the mob make the decisions doesn't work.
And Ralph, I say that because of your own posts and "evidence". That cops fired 50 shots into a car may or may not be excessive, but you don't seem to care one iota why they did it. That's mob rule, it's wrong, and it's far worse than the disease (that I actually agree we have) of cop violence.
And you know it, too.
The assumption that society makes that police act prudently and use sound judgement is what makes people more vulnerable to police brutality. Usually the ones left to make the determination or other cops who often give the policemen in question a paid vacation (administrative leave) and the court's full of people who prosecutors carefully screen to make sure they are full of gun toting, bible thumping citizens who believe the police can do no wrong. If you lived in a country where dark skin equaled 'probable cause' in the minds of those charged with protecting and serving you, you might feel differently - or hopefully you would.
"And to declare that only you (or other citizen) has a right to determine the validity of police suspicion is just as wrong."
Which, of course, is not my point at all. I'm talking about the way police now treat innocent bystanders who are under no suspicion at all, or as in my case, holding people at gunpoint when they know very well who you are and that you have committed no crime at all.
When I learned later that they knew who we were all along, but decided to go through the motions anyway, they smugly called it "an opportunity to exercise police procedures" by using me and another person as human guinea pigs, with loaded guns and fingers on the triggers. The lawyers said we could sue them and win, but that it would take years, and the damages would be so small that no lawyer would take the case. The other guy was a Latino, and he was so traumatized that he finally had to seek mental heath treatment.
There was also a recent case where a woman was standing in her own yard with a camera, filming the rather brutal arrest of a neighborhood kid, when a cop threw her to the ground, handcuffed her, and took her camera. The department later apologized, but they first erased the the video she had taken. She was committing no crime at all.
Those are examples of the brutality I'm talking about. I have no sympathy for guilty criminals and I'm not talking about them.
A couple of years ago I was told by a local cop to stop taking pictures of a severe car accident around the corner from my house. I was standing across the street from the accident. I asked the cop why he told me to stop taking pictures. His reply was "Because I said so." I replied "That's not good enough and backed away." The cop gave up and I continued taking pictures. Cops don't like videos or photos for some reason. (There was no issue of brutality in this case.)
I agree with everything you have written here, Will. The police are supposed to be servants of the people, not the other way around. Nowadays, if you fail to immediately respond to a command, the police think they can brutalize you. It doesn't matter if you are unarmed, elderly, mentally disabled, in a wheelchair, or deaf, some police think they have a right to beat you up just because you looked at them funny.
This seems to be a disturbing trend. My husband and I were just discussing it a few days ago after reading this:
Federal Way woman calls 911 during own arrest
I really do not want a soft spoken polite respectful doctor to treat me when I am hemorrhaging from my gut. I want swift overpowering brutal attention without regard for my dignity. I want to win.
I do not want to see polite sports stars. I want brutally focused winners.
No argument from me at all. Both, particularly the woman, are pretty clear examples of excessive force (brutality). Neither is at the level we generally associate with brutality, but IMO both qualify.
I am less concerned over the damage a cop can do by being over aggressive than the damage he/she can do by being timid.
I personally do believe that police brutality is on the rise. So is violent crime, and a complete lack of respect for anyone in any position of authority - parent, teacher, pastor, police officer, etc. What sickens me about the entire situation is that millions of police officers go about their business every day and are NEVER recognized or thanked for keeping us safe from those who wish to do us harm. While I in no way support the use of excessive force, these are men and women who go to work every single day to face criminals who not only want to commit their crime and get away with it, but who also wish to see the police exterminated at their hands.
While I understand the concept of the Blue Line, don't make the automatic assumption that non-participating officers simply turn a blind eye to what's happening with their brothers and sisters in uniform. There are those who stand up for what's right. We don't hear about them.
But rather than castigating them in a public forum and trying to make people angry enough to "fight back," which won't be successful, go to the police themselves. Tell them thank you for keeping you safe. Tell them thank you for assuring that your children can walk up and down the streets of your neighborhoods without fear. Tell them that YOU support them in THEIR efforts to clean up not only YOUR neighborhoods, but THEIR departments. Tell them that you respect their badge, and that you respect it enough that you believe they should stand up for themselves and get those men and women who abuse it out of their squad cars and station houses. What it boils down to is that we all expect police officers to do all the things we don't want to, and then we expect to be able to criticize how they do it.
It's like telling a soldier to roll over and play dead when the enemy shows up on the battlefield.
I am NOT justifying police brutality, and I am certainly not endorsing it, but before you start screaming about how rotten police are, go to the good ones and offer them support. It might make them a lot more willing to grab a broom and sweep out their departments.
I've got a better idea. Let's privatise the police and then we can stop paying them when they need a clear out.
Oh, great idea. The police can become about "profit" not service.
Somehow I can't quite see a nation of everybody hiring a mercenary force to "protect" them. Sounds too much like the old mafia days, when the Godfather took over the town for my taste.
Costa Coffee steals your money to give you coffee that you have no choice over, except you can vote in the CEO every 5 years.
You go to Costa Coffee whenever the heck you want to, can choose what you want, and can stop going if the service is bad.
Which would you prefer?
Now apply that to the police force - what is so different?
In a free market, service is profit.
A police force by it's very nature affects others who are not subscriptive to it, say there are five competing companies providing security and one is known for it's brutality and "shoot first ask questions later" attitude, if you saw a house with a sticker marking it as being protected by that company would you rob it or another one? Obviously you would rob another one, so obviously people would want to hire the services of the most brutal and feared "police force" meaning that this group is now unleashed upon the population, fantastic, we went from a system in which everyone has a say in and where brutality is attacked and eradicated when it is known about to a system where only those people wealthy enough to afford that service have any say and brutality is fully encouraged as a business model.
No to mention those poor sods who can't afford a police force at all, they will never be able to either because it will be impossible for them to get ahead if they can be robbed etc. without fear of punishment.
As libertarians constantly forget we tried all this stuff, well the English did. It was terrible, the police forces were corrupt and brutal with no oversight, the biggest of them actually turned out to be a criminal empire whose head was executed. They regularly framed people to raise their market appeal as having solved more crimes, only the rich could afford them and the poor lived in terror of them.
" . . . brutality is fully encouraged as a business model. "
What kind of police force are we talking about now? Because this sounds very much like the system we have at the moment, and we're stuck with it.
The key difference is that in a free market, we have the choice not to pay them if we do that. Your scenario is absurd. Do you really think that's how people behave? People who pay for services also have a vested interest in not being treated badly by it. People will choose police forces that meet the right balance that suits their needs. Simply, because people desire a balanced level of force, it will be that way.
You are absolutely right in saying that police forces affect everyone: having poor people robbed is a negative on society. People simply don't want crime in their neighbourhood, and will choose services that adequately provide protection for all law abiding citizens in the area. It's not in anybody's interest to have crime in the place they want to raise their family or run their business.
Nope if I am a client of the brutal police force then I want them to be as brutal as they can get away with because that way criminals won't mess with people covered by them. They won't treat me like that because I am client of theirs, anyone who isn't...
There are also other clients of the same police force that want to make sure that everyone is treated equally. Think about it.
One of the most egregious examples I have seen of police overreach was the recent search for the surviving Boston bomber. Police were invading private homes, kicking out the owners and their families at gunpoint, and yelling at them to keep their hands high in the air. Terrified children and old women were sobbing, and it was simply not justified.
They knew who they were looking for and what he looked like and it was certainly not a little child or a little old lady.
Yes, I know it was police procedure, but America was shocked to see other Americans being brutally mistreated by police.
Police procedure, and probably a very justified one.
For instance, police enter a house to search it, and the bomber is hiding in the closet. Will he burst out and grab a hostage? Will he simply blow up the house? Given that he may be one of the "family" and fire as soon as the door opens, do the police have the time to identify every family member as "not bomber"?
If that's brutal mistreatment of the populace, I think we need to either do some redefining or change police procedures. Maybe stay outside and call for the bomber to submit, although I don't see that as very effective.
In this very specific case I do see police actions as justified and potentially life saving - the very job they were doing. You see it as brutal mistreatment of everyone they came into contact with. Without using hindsight (the bomber was in no home), how can the disagreement be resolved?
"Police procedure, and probably a very justified one."
Yelling at terrified old ladies and children at gunpoint, and telling them to keep their hands up?
Yep. Given that that bomber, already known to have no consideration at all for human life, is hiding in that house it becomes imperative to get everyone inside out, and out just as quickly as can be accomplished. The extra couple of minutes spent in coaxing an old lady or a scared child to go outside in their nightgown could cost a life.
Consider what the comments would be if the cop was still arguing with that old lady when she was shot by the bomber. Would you then be complaining that the cop was incompetent? Of course you would!
So, make up your mind; either the cops protect us the best way they can or, even in emergency situations, they stop to argue and explain as pleasantly as possible. Costing lives as they do so.
I'll just add - when a firefighter rushes into a burning building, snatches up a screaming child and runs out, no one complains. Why not?
This isn't police brutality (and I've heard of no one that went through it complaining of such) - it's doing their job the best they can in untenable circumstances.
If there is an urgent target of needed intervention, the poor citizen who gets saved by being brutalized and manhandled should thank God for the cop.
I have to agree with Wilderness, I'm sure that there is Police Brutality, just like everything else, but a lot of it is just media hype. Every since the LAPD/NYPD have been demonized back in the day for incidents of violence or corruption, all police have been under a microscope like they were movie stars. When you put your life on the line everyday, and this day and age you have kids packing assault rifles and shooting up schools, you have to be aggressive. I grew up in a very hostile/violent part of Chicago where the Police responded to calls from to my neighbor 5 or 6 times a day, and I have never personally seen/been a victim of police brutality.
You're lucky you don't live in New York City where the police will pass by 10 white guys packing illegal guns and pockets full of marijuana and stop and frisk 200 blacks and Latinos.
Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue
The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino.
An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports.
Get the Facts
The NYCLU's Work
What to Do if You're Stopped by the Police
NYPD Quarterly Reports
Stop-and-Frisk Watch App
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-just … -practices
Be glad you don't live in Detroit, where there aren't enough police. Where, if you don't live in specific neighborhoods in the city, you may expect a response anywhere from 45 mins to 2 days after you contact the police.
Shit, I almost think I'd rather have a cop kick my ass than not show up until after I've been raped, tortured, killed, and cut into pieces.
Ralph, I didn't realize to whom I was responding until after I posted. You know. Sigh.
I don't understand why we can't have both respect for police officers and the risks they encounter on the job, AND be diligent and reject the notion that it is acceptable for them to abuse their power and harm innocent people. They are supposed to be servants of the people, not masters of the people.
These ideas are not mutually exclusive and both should be expected and encouraged. Questioning authority, especially when it is being abused, is the duty of every citizen, in my opinion.
It's a little odd that we demand respect from the cops that we so disrespect and hate. Most people give what they receive; treat the cop at your door or car window with respect and you will most likely get the same in return. Cops have a job that we hire out because we don't want it, can't do it and are afraid to try but most cops are decent people; respect them for what they do and the badge they wear.
Agree as well that authority needs questioned, but will say that there is a time and place for that. Telling a cop that is waving a gun in your face and yelling for you to get in the ground that you won't do it and that you have a perfect right to be on that street just isn't smart. Put your hands behind you, lay on the ground and accept the handcuffs. Your time to question whether that cop had the right to make his demands will come later; questioning his right at the time will only result in you being "brutalized" for failure to obey orders and (unmentioned) scaring the cop.
I don't respect a cop simply because of his badge, I don't respect anybody simply because they might demand respect. Respect is earned, I have seen many cops treat citizens in terrible ways just because they have a badge and a uniform on. I have also seen many cops treat people probably better than they deserved.
There are police officers that abuse their authority, they are a small minority.
Well, how often do you hear about police brutality? Take that and the fact that the police are working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and you can probably figure out that it doesn't happen that often.
But, I don't have actual proof, just using common sense.
I hear about police brutality frequently, almost on a daily basis. In the Uk, it's become part and parcel of the news, unfortunately:(
Problem is, that if we place those in authority on a pedestal, we're setting ourselves up to fail. The police are human beings, they're flawed. Having said that, I still believe that most enter the job with good intentions, and do a good job.
But, if we refuse to look when they go down the wrong path, if we refuse to even consider that some are a little too power hungry, we're also refusing to admit that they are just human beings, and sometimes weak too.
IMHO, we should just look at each case, and instead of blindly accusing, or jumping to the defense of, looking at each case with impartiality. But it's emotive, some people hate the police, some people love them. Perhaps we should move beyond that.
I, too, hear of police brutality almost daily. Of course, that's with a population of 350,000,000 - even though a small minority, that's still a lot of cops that go bad.
Problem is that almost always the cops are proven to acted properly. Not always, obviously, but far, far more often than the cop haters would have you believe.
So yes, each case must be looked very carefully. In my city there were several killings by cop, enough to cause real concern. The city hired a special investigator to investigate those along with any other perceived wrongdoings. An investigator NOT associated with the police department.
He worked for a few years (and got lots of vitriolic comments from the public) and finally quit to take a similar job elsewhere. A second was hired to replace him.
It has now been about ten years into the program, and there has not been a single case of a cop killing someone that has been prosecuted. There hasn't even been more than minor disciplinary action taken for "brutality" or other such things.
We've learned to trust this system - I don't hear any more screams when a cop isn't hung out to dry for shooting someone or even striking them. See, the results of those investigations become public knowledge and people have learned that cops aren't the evil brutes that criminals make them out to be. Error is always possible, as is simple brutality and abuse, but the first is rare and the second even more so.
Cops are human, have different personalities just like anyone else. There is always going to be good ones and bad ones. Some people feel that a badge gives them precedence or makes them better than everyone else. Doesn't matter if you have a uniform on or not, you put your pants on one leg at a time, just like I do. I'm trying to be positive, I really hate to think that there's more bad than good.
I support police, but not a police state. There is a difference, and after watching the Boston outrage, I think we need to address it.
Homeland Security agent uses Mexican on the Mexico side of the border for target practice:
NOGALES, Ariz. — As rocks hurled from Mexico rained down on United States Border Patrol agents one night last October, at least one of the agents drew his gun and fired across the border, striking a teenager 11 times, 7 times in the back. The boy, José Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, collapsed and died on a cracked sidewalk blocks from his home, under a sign that read “emergencias médicas.” The police in Nogales, Mexico, reported that he had been carrying only a cellphone.
The shooting was not an isolated case. He was one of at least 15 people killed by border agents in the Southwest since January 2010, their deaths a jolt to the careful balance of sovereignty and security that underlies a binational debate over immigration reform.
Those shootings — sometimes during confrontations that began with assaults on agents, other times under less clear circumstances — have bolstered criticism of agents and customs officers who operate along the United States-Mexico border. Lawmakers, civil rights advocates and victims’ families in both countries, concerned about what they view as a lack of oversight and accountability, have made angry demands for answers. Of the 15 victims, José Antonio was one of 10 who were Mexican citizens, 6 of whom died in Mexico, felled by bullets fired by agents in the United States. Since January 2010, not a single agent has been criminally charged in cases of lethal use of force, and the agency would not say whether disciplinary action had been taken.....more here--
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/sh … p&_r=0
Ralph this is an interesting one. I grew out that way, Arizona still has more dirt roads than paved ones. The state ranges from just below sea level to over twelve thousand feet elevations. Within the state there have been on the same day temperatures of 100 degrees in the desert and -1 in the mountains. It houses the Grand Canyon and most the Hopi and Navajo Indian reservations, along with 400 miles of border with Mexico and the cartels.
When I was about 14 I kilt a squirrel with a rock at about 25 paces. I could disable a large dog at 20 paces. With a rock. We would compete with beer cans on log, just like most would with a pistol. Rock throwing keeps coyotes away from sheep and crows out of the corn.
Down Arizona Sonoran way a rock is as deadly as a pistol, in some cases more so.
Take it easy putting labels on things beyond your kiln of understanding. Wolves hunt solo sometimes, we call them lone wolves. Generally they hunt in packs and if they are after you, you have to take down the alpha male NOW. Same for desert Coyote. There is more than one reason they call human smugglers Coyote down there. There is a reason they form "gangs" cartels down that way. A pack of strong 16 year old's attacking the US border with deadly force may well require taking out the alpha dog.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the incident amounted to an American border patrol officer needlessly shooting a Mexican rock throwing teenager on the other side of the border. The officer used unnecessary force. BTW, I've been to Nogales, Mexico, and other border towns many times.
An argument for video surveillance of the borders and prosecution of offending attackers on both sides of the borders, whether they're agents or civilians of either country. Sounds like we need a court system that the U.S. and its neighbors on both borders can be a part of to deal with this.
Unfortunately law enforcement and the military attract a certain number of sociopaths; we need to get better at screening them out. Case in point: the 26,000 estimated rapes in the military, unfortunately looked upon by too many politicians as "boys will be boys." Rape is sociopathic behavior, too, and someone who will rape is likely someone who is capable of killing an unarmed civilian.
Wonderful sentiment on a totally different subject. I agree something must be done to stop rape. Especially in the Military. If we had more female generals and admirals it would help.
But Ma'm, video cameras on the border for prosecution? And courts? I do not think you get it. If you starting walking the Mexican US border from out the Gulf way to the Pacific ocean, you would not finish the walk unaided. This country is so wild and untamed that people do not go there alone, unarmed or without several days supplies that they carry. A bad infection will cost you your life out there. 100's of Mexicans are found dead from exposure out there every year. Dead from just the weather. Human life is not treasured in such an environment, only your own. Think of putting your hand on the sand, and getting a second degree burn, and later that night it drops below twenty degrees. Your water in the shade, can reach 100 degrees easy. And there can be hundreds of miles to the closest house.
Human brutality is such a place -- is not to be compared with easy city life.
What I'm suggesting is a way to provide some objective evidence to figure out what really happened when an incident does occur. A few years ago two border patrol officers were sent to prison on what is pretty much accepted now as perjured testimony from a known drug smuggler, and it took a hell of an effort to finally get them out. I understand your point about the conditions in which the border patrol operates, but it is to their benefit not to have to rely on testimony from people who have their own agenda. Are we supposed to just accept that a border patrol officer was justified in emptying his gun into a teenager's body? Or are we supposed to have some objective evidence and some oversight? I have an open mind, but if someone empties his gun and kills someone else, I want to know what happened, not just give one side or the other the benefit of the doubt.
And what do the extremes in temperature have to do with shooting someone, anyway?
The point is that the land is harsh and murderous. If you hit a man with a rock in the head out there and left him, he would surely die, very quickly. If one rock thrower gets one lucky shot and brings a man down the other twenty could kill him with rocks within a easy minute.
And here or there we dial 911, the nearest back up out there even next to Nogales could be an hour or more away.
They cut off heads and hang them from overpasses out that way. A Coyote can start with 15 people and if he gets 10 across without dying that is a good deal, and he don't care.
The point is that without aid out there you would die in a day or so, it is so foreign and treacherous that you can only imagine it. It is a different reality. You cannot apply your sensibilities and more's to that place or you will die.
That there have been 15 deaths from border patrol over a 3 year time span in the worst area of the nation for drug trafficking is indeed a problem. We certainly don't want to jolt either our lack of security there OR the amnesty programs for the criminals that invade the country and are so supported by Mexico.
The best solution might be to simply take away the guns from all border "security" personnel. Maybe handcuff them while on duty, too, with instructions to simply run away when any Mexican citizen approaches within 100 yards. After all, we hamstring them every other way we can think of - what's a little thing like handcuffs while on duty?
You think it's right for a border patrol (representative of our country) to shoot a teen boy because he threw a rock at him from across the border? Gimme a break!!!
Rather that sit back all outraged, where is your solution? Run away from any Mexican throwing rocks? Take away their guns? Stop patrols? Ask the Mexican government to please control their citizens (and keep them home)?
All very good solutions to stop the influx of drugs and illegals, I'm sure.
Maybe the border patrol should wear helmets and be ordered to move back out of range of rock throwers. .
Good thought, but better put them in a full suit or armor - heads aren't the body part injured by a viciously thrown rock.
And you may as well move them back into the state when you do. When rock throwers learn there is no retaliation they will advance, driving the border patrol ahead of them. There is, after all, an unlimited supply of rocks.
I think that one counts as a "FAIL", Ralph. Allowing the criminals to run off the patrol because they're not allowed to return fire will only make the patrol useless. Might as well fire them all and save the money.
We used to camp out on a friend's ranch west of Tucson, but it's simply too dangerous these days. It is heavily patrolled by both the BP and the Sheriff's officers, but bodies have been found there with no hands and no feet.
The rancher was pelted with rocks when he stumbled upon a group of illegals, and he said they meant to kill him and would have had he not pulled his .357. As it was, he required stitches and had a concussion. The culprits were never caught.
His ranch is over 60 miles from the border! The area south of Interstate 8 that is controlled by Mexican criminals is nearly 100 miles from the border in places. Here in Arizona, we are at war with Mexican criminals.
When BP agents just doing their job are attacked by Mexican criminals, they have a right to defend themselves, and to hell with those sympathetic to the young gangsters, One drug lord hit man was Francisco Miguel N, and he murdered 50 people before finally being arrested. He was 16.
There are plenty of serious problems along the border, but kids throwing rocks across the border isn't one of them, and tirgger-happy Americn border patrolmen shooting them isn't the answer.
You weren't there, Ralph, so you don't really know enough to pass judgement.
May I point out that rocks and clubs were the first arms used by humans, and they were very effective? Why do you think those Mexicans were throwing rocks if they did not mean to harm the agents?
David killed Goliath with a stone, so don't cry your liberal crocodile tears over this young hoodlum. I'm not impressed.
WillStarr: Advocating wholesale slaughtering of children for minor acts of protest. What a good person!
Minor acts of protest - you mean as in clearing out the cops so they can get their drug shipment across the border?
You might recall the "acts of protest" in Vietnam and Afghanistan where the kids "protested" our military by approaching with a vest laden with explosives. And they were not yet anywhere close to being 16, either. We've learned the lesson already just what damage a 16 year old kid can do - do we have to relearn the same thing with every kid?
Typical liberal tactic...put words in their opponent's mouth that they never said, and then falsely claim that's their position. Show me where I said anything about the "wholesale slaughtering of children for minor acts of protest".
You are patently dishonest.
You weren't there either, but that didn't seem to slow you down in passing judgment.
I leave passing judgement to you liberals who are openly condemning the BP agents when you weren't there and don't know what happened.
I leave passing judgement to you liberals who are claiming that teens throwing rocks represent no threat.
I leave passing judgement to you liberals who are demonizing the BP agents when you weren't there and don't know the facts.
All I said was that rocks in your hand are arms, especially if you are throwing them. Menace a cop with any sort of weapon and see what happens to you.
I do not quite get it. "kids throwing rocks across the border". If a "kid" in Newark through rocks at a policemen, the policeman would shoot his ass. Perhaps Ralph you do not get what a rock does when it hits a head. A 16 year old can pitch a ball into a strike zone over 50 feet away at 85 miles per hour. They wear helmets for a reason in baseball.
15 "kids" throwing rocks across a border at our BP and you think that is just "kids will be kids". And did you want the BP to retreat and give up our border? Ralph we are not in Kansas any more.
This is how liberals operate.
They demonize the Border Patrol as armed, evil monsters, while painting their rock throwing attackers as unarmed and cherubic little angels playfully tossing spitballs.
If you have a rock in your hand, Jared, you are armed, albeit poorly, and the agents are authorized to respond to rock throwers with deadly force.
If you are a Mexican throwing rocks at the BP agents on the American side, you deserve what you get, teens or adults.
I'm sorry, but your attitude and those of others here is despicable. Police officers, including border patrol agents, are servants and protectors of the public. Surely, a well-trained, intelligent group of border patrol agents can figure out a way to handle a group of teens throwing rocks. If they cannot, then they are either stupid or lazy.
"at least one of the agents drew his gun and fired across the border, striking a teenager 11 times, 7 times in the back."
Really? You think that is a reasonable response? Sickening.
Another example of police brutality?
A Center Line pit bull dog with a litter of young puppies is dead after allegedly being shot by officers from the Center Line Police Department. Her crime: she had escaped out of her yard and come around to the front of her house.
Dog shot by police
Police kill dog
The incident happened on June 4 by the Knights of Columbus on Bernice in Center Line, Michigan, when a pit bull named Diamond made her escape. She came around to the front of the house to wait on her mom, Liz Urban, to get home from taking a few of the puppies to their new homes.
View slideshow: Mama dog killed by police
Diamond wasn't bothering anyone. She wasn't wandering or acting aggressive as police claim. A neighbor, who witnessed the shooting, only called the police because she thought the dog might need help. She never dreamed the police were coming to murder a family dog
http://www.examiner.com/article/center- … r-own-yard
You can post any story in the Examiner you want. I looked for a real news source on this and found nothing. Do you have one?
Wow, Ralph - you really need to screen your horror stories a little better.
"This article does not dispute the fact that Diamond may have attacked" - It very clearly states the dog did NOT attack and that never even got to it's feet.
" It doesn't dispute the dog may have been aggressive, as a mother dog may have been" - same comment as above.
"Please note this article is based on information provided by Diamond's family and no wrong-doing by the Center Line police department has been determined at this point." - at least there is some little hope the reporter has some integrity, at least enough to give a legal disclaimer. Even though it continually refers to killing a dog as "murder of a family member" - a rather obvious lie.
Please, please, take a little more care with the nonsense posted!
"...In all, five people witnessed the shooting. Police need to remember that just because a witness isn't visible doesn't mean they're not watching from behind a curtain inside their home.
"Center Line Police Department officers allegedly made a return visit to the home after murdering the family dog. A friend to Liz was at the home, and officers repeatedly asked the friend whether she knew this dog. She kept insisting yes she did.
"She was also on the phone with with Diamond's owner at the time and asked the officers whether they would like to speak to Diamond's owner. According to the friend, the officer refused the phone when Liz asked to speak to him, telling the friend to be quiet so the owner on the other end of the phone could hear what they were about to say.
"Officer's allegedly told Liz if she pursues charges she will be arrested on five felonies, which would be determined by the judge, and she will spend a guaranteed 30 days in jail. But if you say you don't know this dog and that she was a stray you will have no problems..."
Personally, I see a whole lot of "alleged" there. What do you see? Facts?
Did you read clear to the end, where the paper made some really obvious attempts to distance themselves from the crazy claims? Such as that all the information was from the dog owners? You know - those really, really unbiased people that didn't see it happen? And completely backing away from the claim that the dog did not attack? With a pretty strong indication that it did?
Did you read that, too?
Yes. I read the entire piece. The dog was shot by the police and died That much is clearly a fact. You are unwilling to believe anything adverse about police that you haven't witnessed with your own eyes. As I've said previously, I recognize that there are usually two sides to every story. Nobody's claiming that the dog bit or attacked anyone. There is a lot of prejudice against pit bulls (which I share) much as there is against Mexicans or African-Americans. So, I'm inclined to believe the worst about the police, and you appear to be inclined to excuse their misconduct, even in obvious cases of abuse as in the case of Rodney King.
Did any of you bleeding heart libs post a sob story about any of the BP agents killed by Mexicans, or any sob stories about the Arizona rancher gunned down by an illegal?
Be honest now...did you?
You know you didn't, because you simply do not care!
And you call US 'sickening'?
If someone had written a comment dumb enough to defend either of those disgusting acts we would have called them sickening too.
No, we did not sympathize with the deaths of BP agents or ranchers because we are liberals and we don't like BP agents and ranchers, so it would never occur to us.
Josak your comments are illustrative of your position in life. Supportive of a failed system just to be awkward to everyone else. That is cool. I support your right to be so. Life is good without such thoughts having impact on anyone.
We called your and your pal wilderness's comments sickening. Nobody called you sickening, but if the shoe fits. You're the one putting out the ad hominem insults.
The border patrol shooting occurred in Arizona where anti-Mexican feelings are rife, and you have a moron bitch for governor and a cretin beast for a sheriff in Phoenix where anti-immigrant politics are toxic. I don't recall reading about anything similar happening along the Texas border where there is a better relationship and less animosity. (Plenty of violence in Mexico along the Texas border, though).
Really, Ralph? Really?
I suggested taking the guns (so they can't shoot kids) and handcuffing the BP (so they can't throw rocks back, either, and hurt some poor kid that's trying to hurt of kill a nasty BP).
I asked for your ideas on a possible solution - you suggested giving them a beanie to protect their body and moving them far enough away that no one could hurt them. While, presumably, still requiring them to provide safety and protection for the city streets that border Mexico.
I suggested going from a beanie to full body armor and moving them to the next state, an obvious requirement as Mexican drug runners don't stop at the border and your suggestion obviously won't work.
And, finally, I reminded you and everyone else that we have lost a lot of soldiers to much younger kids out to kill them.
I'm really sorry that you consider constructive suggestions that match your agenda (invite illegals and their drugs into the country) to be sickening, but I'm not surprised. There's an awful lot of people in this country that make a living off of illegals.
It is not up to Ralph to think of a solution; it is the job of trained professionals. They get paid to be courageous and smart, not lazy and stupid. They get paid to do their jobs in a professional manner. That boy was shot because one or more of those agents did not follow their training.
That would be wrong. Border Patrol agents -- and this might make you gasp: are trained to protect life and our border. Our lives and our border. He followed perfect discipline and training. If the bastards attack with deadly force return that force. Protect the American border from enemies from without. No more games on whether a rock thrown is deadly force, of course it is. It came from without our border to attack our border. By International law and recognized treatise that is an act of war. Believe it or not we, just like China and Iran have a right to protect our border.
The border can be protected by professionals without gunning down teenagers in the back.
If you believe he followed perfect discipline and training then, well, there is nothing more I can say to you because you obviously lack some basic knowledge, probably willfully so.
How? You've made the claim that deadly force is unnecessary - back it up with at least a workable solution.
How about stepping back out of range of the rock thrower?
I are a problem with that straight away Ralph, one step back may entice the rock thrower two steps forward.
I'm not the expert, but I can think of quite a few things to do. Retreat and call the Mexican authorities. Shoot a warning shot in the air and if that didn't work shoot toward their feet. Given that the kid was obviously turning and running when he was shot 7 times in the back, I'm guessing one shot would have done the trick.
Again, I expect people who are paid and trained to handle these situations to be able to defend against rocks without killing a kid.
Yeah - we can call the President of Mexico - the president that has informed us that we have to take care of his people for him. That has begged us to do so. While at the same time carrying out a policy of death on his own southern border that makes this incident look like a tea party. Or we can call that bastion of Mexican morality and honesty - the cop on the beat - and wait 4 hours in a hailstorm of rocks until they show up asking for a bribe before they'll take action. Or we can retreat, leaving that section of the border wide open to the drug runners and coyotes waiting in the building behind the rock throwers. None of those seem particularly appealing.
No, the man was not "obviously" turning and running (not after being shot 4 times in the front, he wasn't!). And you can guess all you want to that one warning shot will do the trick, but experience shows otherwise. A warning shot, coupled with a known order never to hit a target, only promotes further violence (rock throwing or more) an hour later.
Shoot into the air - you do know that that bullet is coming down somewhere, right? As in the head of somebody 3 blocks behind, somebody that really is innocent? Maybe a infant in a crib? That "procedure" is pretty much banned and for good reason.
Shoot into the ground - you do know that bullets ricochet, and in unexpected directions, right? Shooting a gun at an undefined target on a city street just isn't smart. People get hurt that way - people that aren't trying to kill a cop.
So "expect" all you want when you set impossible tasks for your employees (the BP), but unless you are smart enough to come with a better methodology than the pros have, you aren't going to get the results you want. You're asking for a result that no one can or will ever produce - no deaths or injuries - while still protecting our borders and people.
I'm done discussing this with you. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a nit-picking defender of the indefensible. You accuse us of passing judgment yet your posts are full of excuses for the perpetrators and prejudice and stereotypes toward the victims. I'm not just talking about this thread; it is a pattern with you. There is such a thing as ethical behavior on the part of those with power and authority. There is such a thing as restraint. Good people practice both all of the time. Good people speak up and question those who abuse their authority or power. In some cases, it is quite easy to see who has not used restraint or practiced ethical behavior. Stomping on heads, beating up unarmed disabled people, raping unconscious girls--most people know when a line is crossed.
Before you mischaracterize my position, let me be clear: I am talking about abusers of power, not all cops, all BP agents, or all teenage boys.
Fair enough, PP - it is probably best to end the conversation. Because I find you live in a fantasy world of your own imagination. One where enemies and villains only exist in those we charge with protecting us, where tough calls and actions are never necessary.
You look for wrongdoing by those "villains" and don't really care if you find it or not; you will twist reality to make it so when you can't prove it just as you do here (the men throwing rocks are "kids" and "children" and were running away while throwing rocks behind them). You are unconcerned with the results of your demands - that others will suffer for your "ethics" is immaterial. Now, when the stupidity of your bright ideas is made plain (shoot into the air, thereby putting innocent bystanders at risk) you will ignore it and run away (I don't wanna talk about this anymore!) while charging someone else that points it out as "defending the indefensible".
So you have a nice day - I don't see any reason to try and discuss reality while you talk about the fantasy that we can always act as we would like to.
"By International law and recognized treatise that is an act of war."
What is a "recognized treatise?" A kid throwing a rock is an act of war? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Typical blow-hard drama. These guys get their jollies living vicariously through authoritarian military and police actions.
Pretty and Ralph go back to the craziest things you ever did was sail alone on a lake and quit your job. Neither of you have been to Nogales. You have no frame of reference accept houses in middle America, boats and kids. You act like you understand the 16 year old men --- by the way, legal draft age in Mexico -- And the average age of a drug mule. You do not know anything about their plight and fight for survival. You got know clue their poverty and lack of education and medical care.
I promise you that 16 year olds pardners do not consider him a victim but a soldier. You just want to transplant your ideals onto an area you know nothing about. Do either of you speak Spanish or know how to roll a burrito Frontiera style. Have you been to Tecate, Tijauana?
What makes you think I've never been to Nogales? I've been there many times. Agua Prieta, San Carlos, Hermosillo, Matamoros, Ciudad Juarez, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico City and many other places in Mexico. I venture to say I know a lot more about Mexico than you do, pal. I speak Spanish fluently-- Pendejo! Huevon! Maricon! Mierdacarajoputahuevonhombre! :-)
No, I haven't done those things. So what? Understanding the concept of reasonable use of force does not require having been to Mexico.
Sorry - if you're going to gripe, then provide an alternative solution. Simply saying "BP must never shoot anyone under the age of 17 regardless of their actions" doesn't cut it. We all have gripes, but simply airing them doesn't find a solution.
Ralph has a gripe - that people hurting BP agents get killed - but I personally don't see any solution but withdrawing all BP. If he does, let him speak up.
And no, that young man was shot, not because a BP agent didn't follow training, but because he threw rocks with the intent to cause bodily harm. Harm to someone with a gun, and that's just not smart. Put the blame where it belongs; on a young man that did something he knew was exceedingly stupid.
First of all, I did not say "BP must never shoot anyone under the age of 17 regardless of their actions." You like to argue against a mischaracterization of my position because it's easier to argue against. We are discussing a teen throwing rocks, a very specific action.
As for the rest, as I have said before, it is up to the professionals to come up with a solution that is appropriate to the situation. Shooting a rock-wielding teenager 11 times, 7 of them in the back, is neither appropriate nor intelligent. It's cowardly, foolish, and lazy.
No, you're not asking the pros to come up with a solution that is appropriate to the situation (they did that, at least in their opinion).
You're asking the pros to come up with a solution that fits in with your ideas on morality, of right and wrong. While doing a job (that you require they do) that is at odds with those ideas. It's as if you required surgeons to do open heart surgery without cutting flesh - you are setting an impossible goal to meet.
Now, I don't know that it is impossible to control an invasion of our borders without using violence up to and including death. I just know that I don't know how to do it and apparently the pros don't either - hard to believe they are all evil monsters wishing only to kill people.
Which leaves it up to the people wanting it done to find a method. We've given the pros a task (protect our borders and the people there) - either let them do their job the best way they know how or give specifics of how you want it done.
"And, finally, I reminded you and everyone else that we have lost a lot of soldiers to much younger kids out to kill them.
'I'm really sorry that you consider constructive suggestions that match your agenda (invite illegals and their drugs into the country) to be sickening, but I'm not surprised. There's an awful lot of people in this country that make a living off of illegals."
That's childish drivel. I don't recall that we have "lost a lot of soldiers along the Mexican border to much younger kids out to kill them." You apparently confuse Mexico with Afghanistan or Connecticut.
"Inviting illegals and their drugs into the country" is hardly my agenda although I do support immigration reform which would eventually eliminate the issue of people in this country who "make a living taking advantage of illegals."
Sure. And because it has only happened somewhere other than the Mexican border absolutely means it will never happen there.
I dunno about the agenda. You are old enough and smart enough to understand and know that words aren't going to stop the drugs or illegals from coming in. That it is impossible to stop (or even slow) without the threat of violence; violence more than forcibly providing transportation to their homeland.
You know this yet suggest removing the BP because it is the tool supplying the violence. So no, I'm not at all sure I know what your agenda is or accept your stated desire for immigration reform. Or does that simply mean open the borders to everyone - someone suggested that in today's Letters to the Editor.
We didn't defend those despicable acts, either. You're defending shooting an unarmed teenager 11 times, 7 of them in the back.
"If you are a Mexican throwing rocks at the BP agents on the American side, you deserve what you get, teens or adults."
You're supporting a death sentence, without trial, for a teenager throwing rocks. Like I said, sickening.
The answer from the liberals who are whining about the rock throwers:
"No, we did not post anything about the BP agent's or rancher's deaths. Why would we?"
This is the blatant hypocrisy of the left.
And you are dishonestly distorting what we are saying.
So tell me, PrettyPanther, what did you post about the BP agent's deaths or the death of Robert Krentz, a beloved Arizona rancher who went to an illegal's aid and was murdered for his kindness?
I don't remember one word from you or any of the rest of the liberals who are now whining about a rock throwing hoodlum who was killed in self defense.
You make me sick to my stomach with your hypocrisy.
Oh give me a break. This forum is about police brutality. I hardly ever create forum threads so the fact that I didn't create one about a particular subject means nothing. It is a silly, desperate argument on your part, revealing that you have no real defense to your position that a rock-wielding teen deserves death by gunfire from people who are trained to know better.
What the heck is this "know better"? A man assaulted with a deadly weapon on a post he his sworn to protect and maintain for your benefit is wrong in returning fire across a hostile border. You want us to feel bad because we won that battle of Nogales? The average age of the crusades cannot be determined because so many were under 10 years old. Viet Cong won a war with an average age of 17. Stalin and Hitler used "troops" as normally young as 14.
Police can only be called brutal on those they are to protect, insurgents from Mexico are not their charge, but their enemy.
No one defended the murder of those men, some people defend the murder committed by the VP so it becomes necessary to discuss it.
Be it the US Border Patrol or the US military, the guilt-ridden liberals loons always side with the other guy.
America is never right, so blame America first.
It's just who they are, so we are wasting out time trying to explain right and wrong to those who could not care less.
What I do not get is these folks still backing the President who is the head of these agencies they deride. Hypocrisy is rampant. Not one has pointed the blame of police brutality on Obama or Holden -- what failed ideology.
We're not blaming America; we're blaming those to respond to non-lethal force with excessively lethal force.
Zelkiro, it is clear you have been hit in the head with a rock going 50 mph. So I will not doubt you judgment on this.
Right. They should have thrown rocks back. At least until they hit the guy in the head and put him in the hospital like he was trying to do to the BP: that would be just wrong.
Such a shame we have yet to invent darts filled with some kind of serum to tranquilize the target, or even a projectile that could utilize weights and strings to bind their limbs together.
But, you know, it's not like Mexicans are people or anything, so clearly it's not murder to blow his brains across half an acre because he whizzed some pebbles at you.
Ahh - a suggestion that might be of value!
Certainly we have the first, and possibly even the second. Next question is will it convince the rock throwers not to do it again, or convince them to keep trying to injure or murder a BP? As, at least in this case, we can't collect them for prosecution (where they get a slap on the wrist and a ride back home) I kind of think it is the second. We'd be teaching them that it's OK and kind of fun to try and hurt a cop. Or at least a US cop - they already know there are rather severe consequences for doing such things to a Mexican cop and won't do it.
So how much encouragement do you think we ought to be providing to cop killers before we do something to slow the process down? Should we lose 5 cops? 10? How many American kids won't have Daddys before we should do something about it?
I think the issue is more that they killed someone running away, that is murder not self defense. Simple as that. if you did that in the US, killed someone running away from you, shooting them in the back, who probably didn't even have a rock anymore you would spend life in jail.
There is no debate here, murder is wrong.
No argument from me; murder is wrong. Self defense isn't. From Ralph's link, Shawn Moran states that “When their lives are threatened, when their well-being is threatened, and when they’re in danger to suffer great bodily harm, the use-of-force policies allow them to defend themselves,”
You bring up an interesting point, though. This young man was shot 11 times, including 7 in the back. At least according to the so-believable Mexican police, and although you say he was running away I saw no indication that the first shot was in the back. But shot with what?
Is the BP walking city streets with fully automatic, military weapons now? Because I do NOT believe that a single BP agent pulled the trigger 11 (or more) times while the guy was falling. Either multiple agents shot (the story said just one) or a fully automatic weapon was used.
Whereupon 11 shots hitting the target is not impossible in a very short period. A spinning target, no less, as early shots turn and twist him around and later ones hit him in the back.
So is BP carrying automatic weapons on the streets of Nogales now? Or (shock!) has the Mexican police exaggerated just a bit? Sure would like to know how many spent cartridges were on the ground there...and which gun(s) they came from.
He didn't have to be shot 11 times while falling, he could have kept on running after being shot or he could have been shot more times after falling, I really doubt that any agent would be using their weapon on fully automatic even if it's capable of it. The most likely scenario is he was shot repeatedly in the front, ran and was gunned down.
I also really doubt the Mexican police would lie about it, because the lie is so easily proved a lie by a quick examination of the corpse that will be in a morgue then a funeral home and then probably in an open casket funeral.
Shooting someone 11 times is not a reasonable use of force for self defense, particularly when confronted by someone throwing rocks, there is no way someone who has been shot say three times is any danger when armed with stones.
Well, we're both making assumptions here that we have to proof at all of. I do not believe any single agent pulled the trigger 11 times - you do. Clearly making that agent an animal that should never have been born.
You're insisting the guy was running away while being shot. You even say he was shot multiple times in the front and still ran away - I simply don't believe that, either. Way too far removed from what I find possible and no evidence he was running away at all.
Mexican police don't lie? Because they will give you the corpse to do an autopsy on? I'm not sure what world you live in, but it's a different one than I do. You're really grasping at straws here, straws that will break every time you touch one.
You're right that shooting someone 11 times is not self defense, at least without extreme extenuating circumstances that I don't see existing here. Unless that gun is on full auto, and I just don't see any other alternative than that. You and I both think that is improbable, which leaves that someone somewhere is flat out lying about what happened.
But we're kind of leaving the general subject of using deadly force in border confrontations and moving to details of a specific case - details we don't and probably never will have. A rather useless debate without those details. Should we be sticking to discussion of what we want our BP to accomplish vs the cost of that requirement? How much are we willing to pay (in terms of bodies) to secure our borders and protect our citizens?
Well given the data we do have the issue is simply indefensible murder. I think we agree there.
If we are going to start speculating that this data is false then there is no point discussing the issue because there is no basis for the debate, maybe the kid shot himself 11 times in the back who knows?
Given the data we have though that was murder.
Here. The sum total of information we have, as reported by the New York Times:
"As rocks hurled from Mexico rained down on United States Border Patrol agents one night last October, at least one of the agents drew his gun and fired across the border, striking a teenager 11 times, 7 times in the back"
That's it. The sum total of all the information you're working with. Not even reported as news but simply as a byline in an article on border violence.
There is no judge in the country that would look at that one sentence and sign a warrant for the arrest and indictment of anyone, yet you are satisfied that "that was murder" and would not only indict but assign guilt without trial.
Bah! Allow me to quote another post in this thread that expresses my sentiment of anyone that would make such a statement:
"Really? You think that is a reasonable response? Sickening."
Because that's what it is; sickening. And when reasonable voices speak up, saying there is just a little more to this pathetic attempt at raising emotions than we are being given it becomes even more sickening when they are shouted down with:
"I'm sorry, but your attitude and those of others here is despicable." and:
"But, you know, it's not like Mexicans are people or anything, so clearly it's not murder to blow his brains across half an acre because he whizzed some pebbles at you" and:
"...Advocating wholesale slaughtering of children for minor acts of protest. What a good person!" and finishing up with:
"And you are dishonestly distorting what we are saying"
Yeah, it's sickening all right. Enough so that I am through discussing this vicious, terrible, murderous rampage by brutal animals that will blow away any Mexican child they find.
You want to discuss border violence, what we find acceptable, what needs done there vs what we cannot do, I'll contribute. You want to continue the unwarranted attacks on people hired to do one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in the country while people like you laze back in their armchair quarterback position and bitch, do it with yourself. I'm not interested.
As I said with the information we have that is murder.
You can puff yourself up in false righteous indignation that people might question the act of shooting a minor 11 times for throwing rocks at them but it's very transparent as false.
Yup those people whom we hire, whose wage I pay, i expect to act professionally and with restraint, from the available evidence they totally failed to do so, outrage is not only understandable it's damn right morally necessary because that is how we as a populace voice our disapproval of an act and demand that it is investigated.
I have two bullet holes from my military services (both times without the luxury of being paid for the privilege) so you can stick the "while people like you laze back in their armchair quarterback position and bitch" as far up your own behind as you can manage.
BTW you were wrong, the boy did run he was found several hundred meters from the fence on a sidewalk, there were at least eight rounds actually in him at least seven hit him from behind, seems he kept on running after being shot eight times then died.
Correct. We can't conduct a trial, examining and cross-examining witnesses and conducting an autopsy here in this forum. All we have to work with are the facts reported in the media. Based on those facts the Homeland Security agent's action amounted to an inexcusable, unwarranted killing of a Mexican teenager. We should be able to agree on that based on the reported facts.
"Such a shame we have yet to invent darts filled with some kind of serum to tranquilize the target, or even a projectile that could utilize weights and strings to bind their limbs together."
Totally out of touch with reality.
Come on now, Will. We have tranquilizer guns. They are single shot, hard and slow to load and dosage is as likely to kill as it is to stun, but we have them.
We could also build guns with a flying net and lead weights on it to wrap around the target. That the weights are likely to cause real damage is immaterial, as is that the target (or buddies) will promptly unwrap him and keep throwing rocks.
Why would you throw a rock at someone if you did not intend to cause great bodily harm or death? Are you claiming that they were so stupid that they thought a thrown rock was harmless? What do you think stoning people to death is all about?
This is the same thing that finally caused the National Guard to open fire on the radical leftist rock throwers at Kent State. I did not shed a tear then, and I do not now. Good riddance to the Kent State radicals and good riddance to the Mexican rock throwers.
The story said the BP agent 'drew' his weapon, so that would be a pistol or revolver. Most revolvers hold six rounds, and most pistols hold fifteen rounds max, if they are 'draw-able'.
By my count, they claim the kid was hit eleven times, which means that the agent was a superb shot who never missed a round.
I smell a lie.
I want that marksman on MY pistol team. Because he not only didn't miss a round, he did it with a moving target, running away "several hundred yards". Not bad for a pistol!
Unless, of course, you believe that child ran those "several hundred yards" with 11 rounds in him...
That isn't just a bad smell, it's a cloud of skunk spray that will absolutely choke anyone looking for what really happened last October.
Yup in this photo you can see where he ended up in reference to the fence, btw the police, the autopsy (not conducted by the police) and the family have all confirmed large numbers of bullet wounds, the autopsy actually produced the eight rounds that were still in the boy when the autopsy was performed and confirmed at least seven of them came from behind, the photos of the autopsy have been entered into evidence.
There is no lie here at all, the kid just kept running while he was dying, it's not uncommon. Just people trying to create a broad conspiracy involving several government agencies and private individuals to not have to admit that a BP agent committed a murder.
I repeat they have the eight rounds they dug out of him and there was no fully automatic used = murder.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176932999 … -shootings
You're incredible. "there is no lie here" huh?
You've produced a photo of the "crime scene" clearly showing "where he ended up in reference to the fence" have you? It appears about 100 feet, not the several hundred yards you claim. A lie, either way.
The photo also shows either a street or parking lot - he died in a cracked sidewalk. Somebody's lying.
"the kid just kept running while he was dying" Not a single thing in this latest crap article says that - only you. Why?
From the article, there is no evidence from ballistic reports that the kid was involved in the crime that went down at the scene of the shooting (drug dealers dropping their load and dashing back to Mexico, where their retreat was covered by a hail of rocks). Not that's a real shocker - that a ballistics report doesn't show the guy know or was involved with the dealers. Same for an autopsy - it doesn't show the kid was part of the dealers game. I can't imagine why it doesn't show that, but more, I can't imagine why such a thing is mentioned at all! Maybe to convince ignorant Gringos that their soldier is a criminal?
Mama says her little boy didn't have a weapon - that's another shocker. We certainly know that Mama won't lie about it!
"She [Mama] says she wants justice". No she doesn't, any more than you do. She has already convicted the shooter, just as you have, and is probably spouting lies (ran 300 yards as you can see from the photo) just as you are.
This is disgusting. You want justice; call for an investigation and quit trying to inflame public opinion with lies.
Our border patrol is what is disgusting!! (and your attitude!)
"...gunfire in response to rock throwing is excessive use of force. But again, what upsets him as much is the fact that there's been no contact in six months.
"I'm embarrassed that our government would allow an officer to shoot a young man and not respond to the family in one way or another. It's shameful," Montiel says.
Last year, Congress asked for a review of the Border Patrol's use of force. That review is ongoing."
In any case, if he was throwing rocks, it was self defense.
Police brutality is even worse in Brazil:
A captured instance of brazen police brutality against a civilian has, once again, captured the attention of the global community. The shocking photograph of a lone woman being pepper sprayed at close range by Brazilian police has gone viral, drawing criticism and attention to the ongoing mass demonstrations in Brazil—at which the attack took place—and the chronic undercurrent of police violence that so often follows peaceful citizen uprisings.
New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer spoke with the photographer behind the image, Victor Caivano, who said that the attack happened at around 11:20 PM Monday evening, long after "the protest was over, riots included."
The woman appeared to be a "normal, middle-class university student," he said, adding that she was standing alone on a "deserted corner" after the police had cleared the area.
Three riot officers approached the woman and told her to leave. When she objected — the woman either questioned the order or insisted that she wasn't doing anything wrong, Caivano recalls — she was pepper-sprayed. "This policeman just didn't think twice," Caivano says.
The woman stumbled backward, "screaming and cursing." She was detained and taken to a police van. Caivano says local reporters are now trying to track her down.
The photograph has drawn obvious comparison to two similar images of the unbridled use of pepper spray, each encapsulating the fierce police brutality that too often comes hand-in-hand with such demonstrations.
One is of a woman named Ceyda Sungur—the 'woman in the red dress'—who, during a recent protest in Istanbul's Gezi Park, was bombarded by an officer who shot pepper spray directly into her face.
"The jet sent her hair billowing upwards," wrote the Guardian at the time. "As she turned, the masked policeman leapt forward and hosed down her back. The unprovoked attack left her and other activists choking and gasping for breath; afterwards Sungur collapsed on a bench."
To the left, the cops (they used to call them 'pigs') are always wrong, and the poor little criminals are always abused.
The BP agents have been given the OK to defend themselves against rock throwers.
The liberals are partly to blame for this, because they encourage the rock throwers by siding with them against police. If the libs started yelling at the throwers instead, there would be a lot less of it.
I don't feel sorry for a rock thrower. They asked for it.
"To the left, the cops (they used to call them 'pigs') are always wrong, and the poor little criminals are always abused."
Not at all true. Most policemen are conscientious and do a good job in a sometimes dangerous occupation. However, the profession does attract a certain number of prejudiced individuals and bullies, and their misconduct is frequently not addressed because the law enforcement community tends to protect its own.
"The BP agents have been given the OK to defend themselves against rock throwers."
If that's true who ever gave those instructions should be fired.
I don't feel sorry for armed, murdering thugs who respond to light non-lethal force with excessively lethal force. They asked for it.
"If that's true who ever gave those instructions should be fired."
What's your law enforcement expertise. Ralph? Who are you to say when a BP agent can defend himself?
When I ran a security service, I was once confronted by a drunken biker gang out on the dessert. They were armed with knives, baseball bats, and yes, rocks. There were probably a few guns too. I produced my riot gun and they could see I had two sidearms. I was fully prepared to defend my life, whether they had guns or not.
Who are you to tell others when and how they can defend themselves?
"Who are you to say it's okay to shoot a teen across the border in Mexico for throwing rocks?"
Someone who understands the concept of self defense.
Throw a rock at me and I will defend myself. I expect cops to do the same.
"In one such case, examined by Frey in the May issue of The Washington Monthly, Border Patrol agents reacted to rocks thrown across the border with a volley of gunfire into the streets of Nogales, Mexico. Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, an unarmed young man strolling through the neighborhood, was hit twice in the back of the head and six times in the back. He fell and died on the spot.
"In another case, Border Patrol agents killed a father of four while he was collecting firewood along the banks of the Rio Grande river. They also shot a 36-year-old man while he held a picnic to celebrate his daughter’s birthday, and a 15-year-old boy who was watching a Border Patrol agent apprehend a migrant.
"These cross-border shootings and other alleged instances of brutality have failed to attract much international attention so far, according to Frey. But his own investigations have disclosed a portrait of “an agency operating with thousands of poorly trained rookies and failing to provide the kind of transparency, accountability, and clear rules of engagement that Americans routinely expect of law enforcement agencies.”
"....So why do we need so many more agents peering over at Mexico? Evidently thousands of additional armed and uniformed men – along with the fencing and high-tech surveillance gadgets, all of dubious value – are necessary so that legislators can proclaim their own toughness. But there are potentially deadly consequences to bringing on a huge, rapid influx of inexperienced personnel.
"Over the past few years, Border Patrol agents have killed a number of innocent civilians in several incidents that indicate overzealous attitudes and inadequate training. A federal grand jury is examining the terrible case of a Mexican man apparently murdered, as witnesses watched, by agents who beat him and shocked him repeatedly with tasers while his hands were bound. The San Diego, CA, Coroner’s Office classified his death as a homicide. At least eight others, only one with any connection to criminality, were killed in cross-border shootings that have understandably outraged the government and people of Mexico.
"Journalist and filmmaker John Carlos Frey first exposed these lethal incidents — and the troubling disorder in the Border Patrol – with a series of prize-winning broadcasts and articles over the past year. (His work can be found at www.theinvestigativefund.org/reporters/johncarlosfrey.) In one such case, examined by Frey in the May issue of The Washington Monthly, Border Patrol agents reacted to rocks thrown across the border with a volley of gunfire into the streets of Nogales, Mexico. Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, an unarmed young man strolling through the neighborhood, was hit twice in the back of the head and six times in the back. He fell and died on the spot.
"In another case, Border Patrol agents killed a father of four while he was collecting firewood along the banks of the Rio Grande river. They also shot a 36-year-old man while he held a picnic to celebrate his daughter’s birthday, and a 15-year-old boy who was watching a Border Patrol agent apprehend a migrant.
These cross-border shootings and other alleged instances of brutality have failed to attract much international attention so far, according to Frey. But his own investigations have disclosed a portrait of “an agency operating with thousands of poorly trained rookies and failing to provide the kind of transparency, accountability, and clear rules of engagement that Americans routinely expect of law enforcement agencies.”
"As Frey notes, the Border Patrol not so long ago enjoyed a far better record and reputation. The rise in unjustified police violence along the Mexican border has coincided with a sharp increase in the number of agents, stemming from the Bush administration’s panicky reaction to a tide of illegal immigration between 2006 and 2009.
"It is also true, as he acknowledges, that Border Patrol agents have a dangerous and difficult job. Since 2007, at least 20 agents have been killed in the line of duty, either accidentally or in violent encounters with smugglers. At least one was killed by friendly fire in a confrontation with suspected drug runners.
"That is why Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and the president must ensure that every agent receives sufficient training to protect the border, themselves, and the innocent civilians of the United States and Mexico. There is no longer an immigration emergency, if there ever was one. So before rushing to bring on 20,000 more agents, U.S. authorities need to establish the rule of law, order, and justice within the Border Patrol itself. The alternative involves too much risk, with too much expense, for too little reason."
http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-the-sen … nd-lethal/
The police and the United States are always wrong, and Mexico is always right.
I notice that your list does not include Border Agents killed in the line of duty. But then, who cares about the cops, right?
"The police and the United States are always wrong, and Mexico is always right."
I didn't say or imply that." However, it appears that SOME untrained, trigger-happy border agents are using Mexicans on the OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER for target practice.
U.S. Border agents killed in the line of duty here:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_secur … ng_agents/
You apparently didn't read the item posted above:
"It is also true, as he acknowledges, that Border Patrol agents have a dangerous and difficult job. Since 2007, at least 20 agents have been killed in the line of duty, either accidentally or in violent encounters with smugglers. At least one was killed by friendly fire in a confrontation with suspected drug runners."
"However, it appears that SOME untrained, trigger-happy border agents are using Mexicans on the OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER for target practice."
At least that's what the leftists always want us to believe with their one-sided stories. I would be far more receptive and impressed if they ever presented both sides, but of course the left never does that because it would spoil their fun.
I've presented no story at all. I'm just questioning your own highly biased attitude toward our Border Patrol. You, and other leftists, seem hell-bent to condemn them without knowing all the facts.
Well, what do you think of this one?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/nyreg … n&_r=0
Rikers Island Security Chief Is Charged With Ordering Brutal Assault on Inmate
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and RANDY LEONARD
Published: June 26, 2013
After the second inmate slashing of the day, guards on Rikers Island were checking inmates for weapons — an exhaustive process that involves repeated strip searches and the use of screening devices.
Those accused in connection with an inmate’s beating on Rikers Island last July: Top row from left: Eliseo Perez, retired assistant chief; Officer Jose Parra; Officer Alfred Rivera; Officer Tobias Parker; and Capt. Michael Pollard; bottom row from left, Officer David Rodriguez; Officer Jeffrey Richard; Officer Harmon Frierson; Officer Dwayne Maynard; and Capt. Gerald Vaughn.
Standing outside a search pen, the new assistant chief for security, Eliseo Perez Jr., locked eyes with an inmate.
“This guy thinks he’s tough,” Chief Perez said, according to prosecutors in the Bronx. And then he ordered his subordinates to kick the inmate’s teeth in, the authorities said.
On Wednesday, Chief Perez, who recently retired, and nine current officers and supervisors with the New York City Department of Correction were arraigned on criminal charges in connection with that episode on July 11, which resulted in the beating of the inmate and a coordinated effort to cover up the attack, according to an indictment.
Upon Chief Perez’s order, the inmate, Jahmal Lightfoot, was led into the search pen where five members from an elite correction unit were waiting for him, an assistant district attorney, Lawrence Piergrossi, said at the arraignments in State Supreme Court in the Bronx.
“He was tackled, brought to the ground,” Mr. Piergrossi said. “He was repeatedly kicked with his body in a fetal position, covering his head.”
Mr. Piergrossi held up photos of the inmate’s injuries, which included fractured eye sockets and a broken nose.
A few hours later, when the officers realized the extent of Mr. Lightfoot’s injuries, “the cover-up began to unfold,” Mr. Piergrossi said.
One correction officer, Alfred Rivera, claimed that Mr. Lightfoot had slashed him with a makeshift razor, prosecutors said. A captain, Michael Pollard, produced “a sharp piece of metal wrapped with tape,” which the officers claimed was the weapon Mr. Lightfoot had used against Officer Rivera, according to the indictment. But those claims, Mr. Piergrossi said, were untrue.
The charges against Mr. Perez included official misconduct and attempted gang assault.
Norman Seabrook, the president of the union representing correction officers, said that the “charges are excessive — simply a witch hunt into the Department of Correction and members of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association.”
In an interview, Mr. Seabrook said that the use of force against the inmate had been appropriate. “Here we have correction officers paraded into court for merely defending themselves” against an attempted assault, he said.
He disputed that Mr. Lightfoot was beaten. “Was he restrained? Absolutely. Did he have to be restrained? Absolutely,” he said. “The officers did everything that they were supposed to do.”
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
The case is being prosecuted by the office of the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, after an investigation by the city’s Department of Investigation.
Mr. Lightfoot, 28, is serving a four-year term in state prison on a robbery conviction. Investigators do not believe that he was involved in the earlier slashings, although he had previously faced repeated disciplinary actions for possession of weapons while at Rikers, the authorities said.
The episode involving Mr. Lightfoot had previously been described by The Village Voice.
I never said there was no such thing as police brutality. I said that leftists like you always blame police (and the US!) first.
And you do.
Here's an example from my morning paper that qualifies as police brutality and ignorance:
http://www.freep.com/article/20130716/N … r-arrested
The National Press Photographers Association says it appears police violated the First Amendment rights of a Detroit Free Press photographer when she was arrested after trying to get her iPhone back from a police officer who told her to stop filming on a public street and took her phone.
Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the NPPA, wrote a letter today to new Detroit Police Chief James Craig, expressing concerns over photographer Mandi Wright’s arrest and the fact that the SIM card went missing from her phone after police confiscated it.
Wright was arrested Thursday after briefly filming the arrest of a suspect on a public street. Wright said she didn’t know the man approaching her at the scene was a police officer because he wasn’t in uniform and didn’t identify himself.
“In any free country the balance between actual vigilance and over-zealous enforcement is delicate,” Osterreicher wrote. “It may be understandable that law enforcement officers have a heightened sense of awareness after pursuing an armed suspect — but that is no excuse for blatantly violating a person’s First Amendment rights — as appears to be the case here.”
He told Craig that the organization, which has nearly 7,000 members, “has pointed out to numerous groups and law enforcement agencies; photography by itself is not a suspicious activity and is protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately the reliance by law enforcement officers to question, detain and interfere with lawful activities by photographers has become a daily occurrence.”
Detroit Police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens today said that an internal affairs investigation and an investigation into Wright’s conduct are ongoing.
Officials also are looking into the missing SIM card from her phone, as well as whether Wright was left alone in an interrogation room with the suspect she had been filming.
Some Police Chiefs Chafing As Justice Department Keeps a Closer Eye on Policing
"... Cities from New Orleans and Seattle to Missoula, Mont., and East Haven, Conn., are grappling with similar federally mandated changes after investigations into their police departments. In Miami, the Justice Department found a pattern of the use of excessive force — in an eight-month period in 2011, eight young black men were shot and killed by the police. This month, the Justice Department announced a sweeping settlement forcing Puerto Rico to change 11 areas of policing, including the use of excessive force, searches, stops and the handling of domestic violence. It was, the department said, “among the most extensive agreements ever obtained.”
..."Civil rights violations by police departments have been subject to investigation by the federal government since 1994, when Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. But federal intervention has become far more common and much broader in scope under the Obama administration, a development proudly highlighted on the Justice Department’s Web site...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/so … icing.html
I saw a survey just a few days ago that noted that blacks commit homicides at a rate ten times that of whites and Latinos combined, so it's to be expected that they would encounter police far more often. I see no racism or civil rights violations here.
The Obama administration should be using its position to encourage young black women to stop having babies out of wedlock and to encourage young black men to marry and become faithful husbands and fathers.Obama should also use his position to condemn the hate mongering hip hop music, instead of inviting the 'artists' to the White House!
Isn't it interesting that we can look at other people without ever once stepping in their shoes and seeing exactly what they should do and how to live their life.
If a race is stereotyped how can one even consider the possibility that these people are being treated justly?
What I'm about to say I saw on one of these cop programs.
White cop stops a teenager in a vehicle and barks orders at him while he's laying over the trunk of the car. Rough handling of the teenager and then placed in the squad car.
White cop stopped white man in pickup truck. No searching is taking place, the 2 are talking like their old friends but before the procedure is ended the police officer asked the driver do you have any weapons on you and the driver tells him he does have a pistol in his pocket.
It would appear that there are different standards for conducting a stop depending upon who you are.
Very true. Judging from the race of people stopped by the police in my white suburban community, the police are equipped with radar that can detect (black) skin color.
One good thing about technology is that everyone has a cell phone that can record video. It's becoming increasingly difficult for police brutality to go unpunished.
Police out of control in Baton Rouge (my former home town).
"According to a special report from the Baton Rouge Advocate, the Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office is conducting stings to find men willing to have consensual gay sex and arresting them for crimes against nature. No money is discussed in these exchanges; the men are being targeted and humiliated under the state’s sodomy law, which has been unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.
"At least a dozen of these arrests have taken place since 2011, with the most recent taking place July 18. District Attorney Hillar Moore III said that none of these cases have been prosecuted because no crime occurred, but these men are still being arrested, temporarily jailed, and fined merely for agreeing to private sexual activity. According to a statement from Casey Rayborn Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff’s Office, the department clearly doesn’t understand that the sodomy law is unenforceable. In fact, she defended the arrests simply because the invitations for sex took place in a public park — even though the sex itself was still going to take place in a private residence:
"HICKS: This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature. Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted. [...]
" The issue here is not the nature of the relationship but the location. These are not bars. These are parks. These are family environments.
"Manchac Park, where the stings have largely taken place, has been known as a place where “cruising” for anonymous sex takes place, but neither talking about sex nor agreeing to sex are violations of obscenity laws.
"When Lawrence was decided, then-Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub issued a statement asserting that the state’s anti-sodomy law could not be enforced, except in cases of prostitution and bestiality. Still, the law remains on the books, as it does in many other states. Two years ago, a sheriff’s office in Michigan was similarly found to be entrapping gay men under that state’s anti-sodomy law, which also hasn’t been repealed, even though it’s similarly unenforceable. In Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is fighting to maintain a Crimes Against Nature Law that federal courts have specifically struck down since Lawrence."
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/2 … w-arrests/
[Back in the 1990s Washington, DC, police were caught blackmailing gays they identified from baby seats spotted in their cars near gay bars. They identified them from Virginia license plates and threatened to out them if they didn't pay bribes.]
The Killing of Oscar Grant
Fruitvale Station Official Trailer
"In the early hours of Jan. 1, 2009, Oscar Grant III, unarmed and lying face down on a subway platform in Oakland, Calif., was shot in the back by a white Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer. The incident, captured on video by onlookers, incited protest, unrest and arguments similar to those that would swirl around the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida a few years later. The deaths of these and other African-American young men (Mr. Grant was 22) touch some of the rawest nerves in the body politic and raise thorny and apparently intractable issues of law and order, violence and race...."
http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/mo … t-iii.html
I saw this movie today. Very honest; very hard to watch.
I either forgot are wasn't aware of this event. I have said it before and I'll say it again anyone can strap on a weapon but it takes a special kind of person to refrain from using deadly force.
There is a deniability that goes on in America and that deniability goes to being tough. We create an atmosphere where we respect toughness but when the youth/or even the elderly begin to exhibit that toughness we have no qualms at ending their life.
With the kinds of killing going on in America within our school systems, our ability to walk the street safely one can easily ask the question where is this greatness when we talk about America?
A young black man executed by Miami police in a hail of 116 bullets which hit 4 bystanders as well as the victim:
" MIAMI BEACH — The last 90 seconds of Raymond Herisse’s life unfold on YouTube with chilling clarity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixwv5nPEQws
The car Mr. Herisse, 22, is driving rolls down a South Beach street. Shots are heard in the distance as Hialeah police officers try to stop the car. About two blocks later, the car slows to a stop, standing idle for more than minute. Eight Miami Beach police officers cluster near the driver’s side. Then they unleash a barrage of more than 100 bullets, a volley so startling that the hands of the person recording the scene from his cellphone shake.
In all, 16 bullets hit Mr. Herisse, who was killed sitting behind the wheel. Four bystanders were wounded — two men and two women, part of a large crowd gathered on May 30, 2011, for the final day of Urban Beach Week, a raucous, yearly hip-hop and rap event in South Beach.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/2- … rs.html?hp
by deecoleworld2 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by Brian6 years ago
Is anyone else tired of the police doing whatever they want while they are operating a vehicle, while they pull people over for the most tiny break of a law?I was once pulled over by a cop, and I could not figure out...
by Jennifer Kessner16 months ago
If you haven't kept up to date on the issues in Ferguson, here is a drastically simplified version of events:1. On August 9th, a St. Louis County police officer shot an unarmed 18-year-old young black man. 2. The...
by ahorseback10 months ago
Police encounter - If you simply obey the orders of a police officer you will not be shot !What is so evil about obeying the simple , systematic standard directions of an officer in ...
by Dianna Taylor Fobbs2 years ago
With some of the shootings coming from the police lately I really don't know how i feel especially coming from a police family. My father, uncles, some aunts are and were policemen. It really is getting bad
by Mike Russo11 months ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.