Privilege of ‘Arrest Without Incident’

[Buzzword]

“Officers found two people who said they were at a stop sign when a woman pulled up in a dark-colored sedan and fired shots into their vehicle, hitting and disabling the radiator. Then more calls reported a woman pointing a firearm at people as she passed them in her car, and that she fired at another vehicle in the same area.”

When police officers came upon the shooter, the shooter led them on a chase. The shooter even pointed the gun at a police officer.
Surely this was not going to end well. We’ve all seen in recent months what came of people who did far less. Surely in this case officers would have been justified in using whatever force they saw fit. Right?

According to the paper, the shooter was “taken into custody without incident or injury.”

Who was this shooter anyway? Julia Shields, a 45-year-old white woman.

It’s hard to read stories like this and not believe that there is a double standard in the use of force by the police. Everyone needs to be treated as though his or her life matters. More suspected criminals need to be detained and tried in a court of law and not sentenced on the street to a rain of bullets.

Full Article

This story reveals both a gender disconnect and a racial disconnect in the treatment of suspects by police.

A female is always treated as less dangerous than a male, even when, as in the case of Shields, she's packing and has fired multiple shots at multiple people and has directly threatened officers with a deadly weapon.

A white male (say, Adam Lanza) is always treated as less dangerous than a non-white, even when he's packing military-grade hardware and has already killed 20 children and 6 adults.

In both cases, and in many, many others, officers have repeatedly demonstrated that they will devote more effort to detaining a white suspect than if he/she isn't white, even to the point of further endangering themselves and the public.

As if the image of a white suspect being escorted by police is better for the evening news. :think:

 

[Stripe]

No. Not without incident.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Full Article

This story reveals both a gender disconnect and a racial disconnect in the treatment of suspects by police.

A female is always treated as less dangerous than a male, even when, as in the case of Shields, she's packing and has fired multiple shots at multiple people and has directly threatened officers with a deadly weapon.

A white male (say, Adam Lanza) is always treated as less dangerous than a non-white, even when he's packing military-grade hardware and has already killed 20 children and 6 adults.

In both cases, and in many, many others, officers have repeatedly demonstrated that they will devote more effort to detaining a white suspect than if he/she isn't white, even to the point of further endangering themselves and the public.

As if the image of a white suspect being escorted by police is better for the evening news. :think:

In my opinion the race-baiting is missing the point. Everyone, white and black, male and female, ought to be opposed to the violent gang that is typically known as "the police."

They all violate the rights of individuals to be secure in their persons and property, despite the fact that many of said people have never attacked anyone else or violated their right to property.

And then many of them justify even further brutality when some people decide to do the horror of horrors and defend themselves against the police aggression.

This system is unspeakably evil.

 

[resodko]

Full Article

This story reveals both a gender disconnect and a racial disconnect in the treatment of suspects by police.

A female is always treated as less dangerous than a male, even when, as in the case of Shields, she's packing and has fired multiple shots at multiple people and has directly threatened officers with a deadly weapon.

A white male (say, Adam Lanza) is always treated as less dangerous than a non-white, even when he's packing military-grade hardware and has already killed 20 children and 6 adults.

In both cases, and in many, many others, officers have repeatedly demonstrated that they will devote more effort to detaining a white suspect than if he/she isn't white, even to the point of further endangering themselves and the public.

As if the image of a white suspect being escorted by police is better for the evening news. :think:

got video?


'cause wthout video, it never happened ****











**** at least, not the way it's initially presented - it always comes out that there are extenuating circumstances hidden by the initial reporting

 

[Buzzword]

got video?


'cause wthout video, it never happened ****











**** at least, not the way it's initially presented - it always comes out that there are extenuating circumstances hidden by the initial reporting

Except for the Garner case, which happened EXACTLY as represented, WITH video, and yet there was no indictment or legal consequences of any kind.

 

[resodko]

Except for the Garner case, which happened EXACTLY as represented, WITH video, and yet there was no indictment or legal consequences of any kind.

eric garner, the obese asthmatic who was foolish enough to resist arrest and got taken to the ground for it?

 

[Buzzword]

eric garner, the obese asthmatic who was foolish enough to resist arrest and got taken to the ground for it?

And who was treated like an armed, violent criminal for selling individual cigarettes, and was choked to death by an officer, and whose death was ruled a HOMICIDE by the medical examiner?

Yeah, that guy.
Good to know we're on the same page here.

 

[resodko]

And who was treated like an armed, violent criminal for selling individual cigarettes

nope - the video clearly shows the officers treating him respectfully until he became agitated and chose to resist arrest

, and was choked to death by an officer

nope - the video clearly shows the officer releasing garner as soon as he was face down on the ground and the other officers had control of his hands



did you even watch it?

here, educate yourself - it all happens in the first minute:

dont' be stupid enough to resist arrest

"this stops today" :freak:

well, yes, it did

 

[Traditio]

Chris Rock has an excellent video segment on how to avoid becoming the "victim" of police brutality. Perhaps, if more persons of minority status were to follow his advice, "arrest without incident" would become much more common among those persons.

As it stands, they probably need to get the tar beaten out of them.***

Finally, you can complain all day long about apparent disparities, but it's better to focus on the individual incidents. Were the police justified in their individual actions? Is a policeman justified in shooting if someone points a gun at him? Yup. Is it also justified if, there being mitigating circumstances, he decided against it? Sure. It's all about what the individual circumstances call for right then and there. Police have to make on-the-spot prudential determinations about the best course of action.

It's best not to generalize in such cases. Every case is unique and individual. You can't compare different cases of how policemen x, y and z treat suspects a, b and c. They're incommensurably different cases.

But here's the most important point. Why are you complaining about the police? You should be complaining about the criminals that they have to deal with. In case you've forgotten: the criminals are the bad guys.

*** See video below.

Knocking the Sense into Someone

 

[Christian Liberty]

nope - the video clearly shows the officers treating him respectfully until he became agitated and chose to resist arrest



nope - the video clearly shows the officer releasing garner as soon as he was face down on the ground and the other officers had control of his hands



did you even watch it?

here, educate yourself - it all happens in the first minute:

dont' be stupid enough to resist arrest

"this stops today" :freak:

well, yes, it did

Armed thugs wanted to shake down everyone who sold cigarettes for protection money. Most people complied with the thugs but Garner sneaked around them. So, the victims of the original brutality, suffering from Stockholm Syndrome as they are, call the thugs and ask that they ensure they take protection money from everyone. Garner is tired of being harassed by thugs in blue costumes, and so he resists their efforts to lock him in a rape cage. Had he pulled a gun on the thugs, that would have been pragmatically a bad idea, but he would have been defending himself. But he didn't even do that. He simply tried to avoid being locked up by thugs. The cops killed him for this.

Everything about this is contemptible, and there is no non-contemptible person that sides with the pigs on this.

And, though Garner may have been profiled for his race, the bottom line is that racial issues have nothing to do with why this is wrong. It would have been wrong even if he was white. Everything that the cops did in that video was morally wrong. Everything. Not just the chokehold (though that was worse) but the original arrest attempt to.

 

[Traditio]

the bottom line is that...

...he violated the law and then subsequently resisted arrest. That is the bottom line.

 

[Christian Liberty]

...he violated the law and then subsequently resisted arrest. That is the bottom line.

Oh, "the law". The false god of pseudo-Christian state worshippers.

I am adding this video to my sig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs

 

[Traditio]

Oh, "the law". The false god of pseudo-Christian state worshippers.

And apparently of St. Paul in Romans 13.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And apparently of St. Paul in Romans 13.

http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/romans-13/

http://romans13.com/

http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/

St. Paul was a 'law enforcer" before he turned to Christ. After he was saved he spent most of his life on the run from the law. You can shut up now.

 

[Traditio]

St. Paul was a 'law enforcer" before he turned to Christ. After he was saved he spent most of his life on the run from the law. You can shut up now.

Just vs. unjust laws (Acts 5:29). This doesn't refute Romans 13. In any case, I'm just going to point out:

1. Your doctrines have no unambiguous support from the scriptures.
2. Your doctrines are in complete contradiction to the classical political philosophies based on Plato and Aristotle (including, but not limited to that of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists).
3. Your doctrines are in complete contradiction to common sense and common opinion.

Your doctrines only make sense and find support if you presuppose the errant philosophies of the enlightenment, in particular, people like Hobbes, Locke, etc. But then, if you start out with error, error follows. :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just vs. unjust laws (Acts 5:29).

The law the cops were unforcing is unjust and evil.

This doesn't refute Romans 13.

I wasn't trying to. Romans 13 is scriptural. It is your interpretatino which isn't.

In any case, I'm just going to point out:

1. Your doctrines have no unambiguous support from the scriptures.

Well, to the mind of a Catholic, nothing is unambiguous. I think this is pretty clear if you apply basic logic to it. If an action is wrong, its wrong no matter who does it.

2. Your doctrines are in complete contradiction to the classical political philosophies based on Plato and Aristotle (including, but not limited to that of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists).

So what? At least two of those guys weren't even Christians. And while I don't doubt Aquinas was a good philosopher, he wasn't perfect.

3. Your doctrines are in complete contradiction to common sense and common opinion.

"common opinion" sure, but common sense? I am applying principles across the board, which is common sense.

Your doctrines only make sense and find support if you presuppose the errant philosophies of the enlightenment, in particular, people like Hobbes, Locke, etc. But then, if you start out with error, error follows. :idunno:

I've never read Hobbes or Locke, or any of the other enlightenment thinkers.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The fact that I'm debating a Catholic about idolatry is funny enough. The State probably isn't your biggest idol, but we can add it to the list along with Mary, the Saints, and the Pope.

 

[Nick M]

Denver Police shoot white man without arresting

After shooting at the white male without trying to arrest him, the officer with the shot gun does the right thing and blasts him at very close range to kill him.

 

[Traditio]

The law the cops were unforcing is unjust and evil.

Prove it. The State has the authority to regulate commerce; this has been generally accepted since...always.

Well, to the mind of a Catholic, nothing is unambiguous. I think this is pretty clear if you apply basic logic to it. If an action is wrong, its wrong no matter who does it.

If an action is intrinsically wrong, then I agree. It's wrong no matter who does it. What's your point?

So what? At least two of those guys weren't even Christians.

So what?

Let's not pretend that there is here a conflict between a Christian worldview vs. non-Christian worldview. Your worldview isn't based on Christian principles. It's based on enlightenment principles which are destructive both of Christian piety and of social order.

"common opinion" sure, but common sense? I am applying principles across the board, which is common sense.

It's common sense that:

1. There are legitimate government authorities.
2. They have the authority to legislate, and...
3. Police officers have the authority to enforce the laws.

If your doctrines contradict these principles, then they're wrong. :idunno:

I've never read Hobbes or Locke, or any of the other enlightenment thinkers.

Of course you haven't. If you had read Hobbes and Locke, you would realize: 1. that your views are based on theirs and 2. that their views are ridiculous. Your adherence to your doctrines is based on sheer ignorance (no offense intended). :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Prove it. The State has the authority to regulate commerce; this has been generally accepted since...always.

What is the "State"? Its nothing more than a group of violent thugs who act like their victims are the violent ones. "regulate commerce" is a euphemism for the evil violence you support.

If an action is intrinsically wrong, then I agree. It's wrong no matter who does it. What's your point?

Romans 12:18.

Its intrinsically wrong to violate that passage and the police officers were clearly violating it. The peaceful thing to do would have been to leave the peaceful man alone.

Let's not pretend that there is here a conflict between a Christian worldview vs. non-Christian worldview. Your worldview isn't based on Christian principles. It's based on enlightenment principles which are destructive both of Christian piety and of social order.

Wrong.

It's common sense that:

1. There are legitimate government authorities.
2. They have the authority to legislate, and...
3. Police officers have the authority to enforce the laws.

If your doctrines contradict these principles, then they're wrong. :idunno:

Again, what is "government"? All of this is purely arbitrary.

Of course you haven't. If you had read Hobbes and Locke, you would realize: 1. that your views are based on theirs and 2. that their views are ridiculous. Your adherence to your doctrines is based on sheer ignorance (no offense intended). :idunno:

I'm a Biblical Christian. Not a Lockean. You are not a Biblical Christian.