I question that. We were taught that nurses have a legal obligation to stop and assist persons at the scene of an accident if our own lives would not be in danger to do so. Surely police officers are under the same obligation?
This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
I question that. We were taught that nurses have a legal obligation to stop and assist persons at the scene of an accident if our own lives would not be in danger to do so. Surely police officers are under the same obligation?
As he should. But perhaps she would still be alive had she employed a soft answer?
I am not absolving the police officer from his responsibility. But I would rather she were still alive.
Exactly ... also, no one made her commit suicide.
GFR7
New member
I understand this, yes. I wish she had not followed his lead into escalation. Each reacted to the other until it was too late.
Sad to say, it is the law. Would you like to see the decision?
I believe you. And I am shocked!
This is so deeply grievous to me. It is one result of the polarization occurring in our society.
We have lost the art of negotiation.
GFR7
New member
True, indeed. :nono:
GFR7
New member
No, technically and on the surface, no one can make anyone commit suicide.
But this journalist believes suicide can be proximate murder:
Exactly ... progress.
Abuse of power and committing suicide are separate issues. Also, like with most fights and disagreements, it takes two to tango. Two egos, neither wished to back down.
I *wish* she would have just put out her cigarette and signed the ticket. At that point, she would have had the opportunity to complain IF she felt the cop was out of line.
Regardless of the if, ands or buts, she is ultimately the only person responsible for her death.
The federalization of local law enforcement
Though a rapid transition to a federalized police force is unlikely here in America, an incremental shift to greater federal control is already occurring
Jan 3, 2011
The United States has more than 18,000 police departments — far more than any other nation. Each of the 50 states has its own Peace Officer Standards and Training board and officer / deputy certification criteria for more than 700,000 officers nationwide. Over the next several decades it’s likely that a more federalized policing model will replace this decentralized approach.
Critics have argued for years that decentralized police administration fosters inherently poor-quality policing, tolerates racial bias, and makes it especially difficult to monitor and verify training and certification requirements across states. For many critics, federal intervention remains the remedy of choice. The current administration in Washington appears to agree.
All Law Enforcementis Local Will Be Federal
In his now-famous July 2009 press conference, President Obama responded to a question about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates by stating his belief that the “Cambridge police acted stupidly.” He went on to note our nation’s “long history” of disproportionate police stops and arrests of blacks and Latinos, “often times for no cause.”
He then made a comment that drew less attention. He said that we — where the meaning of ‘we’ is federal officials — should work with “local law enforcement to improve policing techniques to eliminate bias.”
Remarks from Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Arizona’s new immigration control law reflect the Administration’s belief that local law enforcement officers routinely violate federal civil rights standards with little regard for ethics or the Constitution.
As American as Apple Pie
These attitudes are tethered to subtle pressure to federalize police governance. The courts, federal grant dollars, and impending nationwide unionization will contribute to the erosion of local control of police authority.
The prevailing tool in the federal effort to rein in local police remains litigation, a process that some would argue is as “American as apple pie.” The courts serve as a Constitutional filter that directly influences police tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Nothing screams national standardization more than the use of force and how that affects individual liberties.1 Any one of the more than 600 law enforcement training academies would be negligent if faculty did not cover Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor, Saucier v. Katz, and Brosseau v. Haugen.
However, other forms of federal litigation have also emerged. In 1994, Congress granted the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division the authority to bring civil lawsuits against police agencies that have demonstrated a “pattern or practice” that results in illegal or unconstitutional behavior. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used this mechanism to force compliance with federal authority and Constitutional mandates...
Read more:
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/3139476-The-federalization-of-local-law-enforcement/
Got a complaint on how a federal police officer handled your traffic stop? Take it up with the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. instead of your local city council.
Support your local police and keep them independent!
http://api.ning.com/files/r8KjV8XYp...vFgEGrVnndxdy5V90KRkCCbokmg__/sylpbanner2.jpg
Though a rapid transition to a federalized police force is unlikely here in America, an incremental shift to greater federal control is already occurring
Jan 3, 2011
The United States has more than 18,000 police departments — far more than any other nation. Each of the 50 states has its own Peace Officer Standards and Training board and officer / deputy certification criteria for more than 700,000 officers nationwide. Over the next several decades it’s likely that a more federalized policing model will replace this decentralized approach.
Critics have argued for years that decentralized police administration fosters inherently poor-quality policing, tolerates racial bias, and makes it especially difficult to monitor and verify training and certification requirements across states. For many critics, federal intervention remains the remedy of choice. The current administration in Washington appears to agree.
All Law Enforcement
In his now-famous July 2009 press conference, President Obama responded to a question about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates by stating his belief that the “Cambridge police acted stupidly.” He went on to note our nation’s “long history” of disproportionate police stops and arrests of blacks and Latinos, “often times for no cause.”
He then made a comment that drew less attention. He said that we — where the meaning of ‘we’ is federal officials — should work with “local law enforcement to improve policing techniques to eliminate bias.”
Remarks from Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Arizona’s new immigration control law reflect the Administration’s belief that local law enforcement officers routinely violate federal civil rights standards with little regard for ethics or the Constitution.
As American as Apple Pie
These attitudes are tethered to subtle pressure to federalize police governance. The courts, federal grant dollars, and impending nationwide unionization will contribute to the erosion of local control of police authority.
The prevailing tool in the federal effort to rein in local police remains litigation, a process that some would argue is as “American as apple pie.” The courts serve as a Constitutional filter that directly influences police tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Nothing screams national standardization more than the use of force and how that affects individual liberties.1 Any one of the more than 600 law enforcement training academies would be negligent if faculty did not cover Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor, Saucier v. Katz, and Brosseau v. Haugen.
However, other forms of federal litigation have also emerged. In 1994, Congress granted the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division the authority to bring civil lawsuits against police agencies that have demonstrated a “pattern or practice” that results in illegal or unconstitutional behavior. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used this mechanism to force compliance with federal authority and Constitutional mandates...
Read more:
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/3139476-The-federalization-of-local-law-enforcement/
Got a complaint on how a federal police officer handled your traffic stop? Take it up with the bureaucracy in Washington D.C. instead of your local city council.
Support your local police and keep them independent!
http://api.ning.com/files/r8KjV8XYp...vFgEGrVnndxdy5V90KRkCCbokmg__/sylpbanner2.jpg
GFR7
New member
Regardless of your delusions about me, I adhere to the Howe and Straussian theory of a return to regionalism and local control on ALL levels; particularly police and courts (but also many other areas).
What happened to Sandra Bland was DUE to the federalization and uniformity of police tactics which began with Reagen's War on Drugs. This is the very thing I want smashed. Return to regionalism is America's only hope, dummy.
:cigar:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Oh, yes it is.
Oh, no it's not.
At least not the way you pretend. Any changes that make it more difficult for cops to abuse their power are a very good thing.
GFR7
New member
You really are delusional. I am nothing of the kind. And Anna is correct: Our compassion is stirred for this woman and what she went through. You really are off your rocker. :kookoo:
A warning ticket is definitely the worse possible experience. Ever.
GFR7
New member
Excuse me? You think Anna and I have compassion for this woman because she received a warning ticket??????:doh:
Anna has compassion for almost everyone. You, OTOH, just need to argue and can't quite grasp that stating someone might have done the wrong thing isn't the same as lacking compassion over their death. I feel sorry for her parents, siblings and friends.
The woman did not deserve to die. That doesn't mean she is less responsible for her death. That is how suicide works.
I have been pulled over by the police on numerous occasions. Some of them were quite snarky. As much as I would have loved to snark back, my preference was to keep the damage minimal and enjoy the rest of my day.
I can't control how other people act, only how I respond. That is true of everyone. I wonder ... if she had gone into work and a co-worker or her boss irritated her in a way she felt intrusive or unfair and it ended in her being fired, would you blame them for being a bully?
GFR7
New member
1. I am known in my family, since a child, for having compassion for all, even the undeserving.
2. I, too, have been pulled over, and it is in my nature to be polite and deferential.
3. I still believe this woman knew abuse of power when she saw it, and had a right to react as her nature dictated (she was the feisty type).
Your posts on TOL say otherwise ... however, I am willing to agree to disagree.
Why?
I don't agree there was an abuse of power and your *argument* for her could be used for him as well. He was the feisty type.
Yay logic.
Dude;
You're completely factually wrong on this.
They can take you and all your passengers out at a traffic stop.
They can frisk and cuff you for their own safety.
Understand that.
Like it or not cuffed and frisked is the baseline.
Any time you're not cuffed and frisked is them being cool with you because you're being cool with them.