The police-abuse-of-power thread

@Mally,
The sentencing and enforcement disparity is quite well documented and is a direct consequence of war on drugs that from the get go was meant to target minorities.
 
Thanks for sharing your story, Mally. I generally believe that the war on drugs is a bad thing. Also, incarceration changed quite a bit in the early 90s and negatively impacted the black community.

Anyways, what about other crimes? Drugs are victimless but what about homicide, burglar, robbery, etc?
 
Lev reminded me about violent crime. I'm perfectly fine with quite drug dealers but it's when they start shooting I start having issues. So if there is a difference in amount of violence that comes from selling those drugs between races I could understand targeting enforcement.
 
@Mally,
The sentencing and enforcement disparity is quite well documented and is a direct consequence of war on drugs that from the get go was meant to target minorities.

I'm well aware but no one seems to pay attention.

Thanks for sharing your story, Mally. I generally believe that the war on drugs is a bad thing. Also, incarceration changed quite a bit in the early 90s and negatively impacted the black community.

Anyways, what about other crimes? Drugs are victimless but what about homicide, burglar, robbery, etc?

Funny to call it victimless when you've seen the results of prosecution. Simply saying "it's legal now" never fixes decades of damage. One-sided damage.

Regarding the other crimes, are you asking what did I see personally or are you asking what do I think in general?

- - - Updated - - -

Lev reminded me about violent crime. I'm perfectly fine with quite drug dealers but it's when they start shooting I start having issues. So if there is a difference in amount of violence that comes from selling those drugs between races I could understand targeting enforcement.

There were no shootings in neither of the neighborhoods I lived in but, as I said, they were policed differently.
 
I'm well aware but no one seems to pay attention.



Funny to call it victimless when you've seen the results of prosecution. Simply saying "it's legal now" never fixes decades of damage. One-sided damage.

Regarding the other crimes, are you asking what did I see personally or are you asking what do I think in general?
In general. For example, Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester and Roxbury are rather violent (gangs, shootings, robberies) and predominantly black. Part of it is white flight, sure, but other neighborhoods aren't nearly as dangerous (although drug use is probably highest among residents of hipster-central Allston). Could that be attributed to policing strategies or are there some major social and economic factors at play here?
 
Is this the kind of message you think should be sent, then?

If you're bent on turning this discussion into a trolling session, I'm out.

You seem to be implying that murdering people is politically justified? :s

Wrong. Read again.

By your own logic, the shooting of BLM's poster child Mike "Hands Up Don't Shoot" Brown was justified. So was the shokting of that kid with a toy gun that looked like a real gun. So was George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately far too many people jump on the bandwagon without bothering to find out what happened.

Mike Brown's behaviour during his attempted arrest was so stupid that he was basically asking to get shot by most countries' standards. He probably shouldn't have been shot with his hands in the air, and 12 rounds should not have been fired, but that's just his 'luck' that he hadn't been shot moments earlier. Anyway, if he kept moving towards the officer after being told to freeze or whatever, he was asking to get shot once again. It would probably be enough to shoot him in the leg, or both legs, or arms (which is very difficult, I know), but six shots in the torso is plainly going for a kill.

Trayvon's situation was tricky. He very well might have been a lowlife and a thief, but on that particular day, it was Zimmerman who followed (stalked) him, probably tried to stop, interrogate or arrest him, despite being advised not to by the police dispatch (an not being a police officer himself). It all ended in an altercation and the fatal shooting of an unarmed man. Basically it's not OK to kill a man in the street even if you suspect him of robbery, it's not ok to kill a man if he punched you. I doubt that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, so there was no real threat to his life in my opinion. Unless he did draw his weapon first, and it was a kill or be killed situation. He could have simply shot Trayvon in the legs, too. Anyway this whole thing was started by Zimmerman.

I was not advocating for either of those cases.

- - - Updated - - -

Simply put there was always police presence in the black neighborhood and nearly none in the white neighborhood. But there must have been more crime that black neighborhood, right? Nope, not really. In fact, there was less drug dealing going on in the black neighborhood. However, the drug enforce was harder. There was random foot and vehicles stop. There were no warnings for dime bags, you simply got arrested.

Do you think the crime levels in both neighbourhoods would be the same if they were policed in the same 'white' manner?

Or was it in fact the zero tolerance policing attitude that kept things quiet in the black neighbourhood?
 
Last edited:
There were no shootings in neither of the neighborhoods I lived in but, as I said, they were policed differently.
I live near projects and policing there is about same as you describe, there are still shoot outs relatively regularly.
freefall said:
It would probably be enough to shoot him in the leg, or both legs, or arms (which is very difficult, I know),
He could have simply shot Trayvon in the legs, too
Here is the thing that you and many other "shoot them non-fatally" crowd doesn't get. Guns are only used for deadly force, if you pull your gun out you are doing it because you believe deadly force is necessary. Not to mention that if you are trying to aim at tiny targets like arms and legs you are not likely to hit them, you are likely to hit something you don't want to. A gun is not pulled out to scare or wound, it is pulled out to kill plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
He probably shouldn't have been shot with his hands in the air...
Not a single witness testified that Mike had his hands up. That was completely made up by BLM.


...and 12 rounds should not have been fired...
You can't just make a blanket statement like that. Someone you don't have to shoot at all; other times you need over a dozen shots. Every case is different.


Anyway, if he kept moving towards the officer after being told to freeze or whatever, he was asking to get shot once again.
You must shoot until the threat stops. Period.


It would probably be enough to shoot him in the leg, or both legs, or arms (which is very difficult, I know)...
NO! It is extremely difficult to hit moving limbs; it is not necessarily effective; and if you do hit them, there's a very high chance of death occurring - femoral arteries don't exactly enjoy being severed. Once the decision to shoot is made, you must stop the threat as quickly and as effectively as possible and that means shooting center mass. Anyone that says otherwise is simply entirely ignorant of use of force.


Trayvon's situation was tricky. He very well might have been a lowlife and a thief, but on that particular day, it was Zimmerman who followed (stalked) him, probably tried to stop, interrogate or arrest him, despite being advised not to by the police dispatch (an not being a police officer himself).
You are speculating. The facts do not support most of what you typed there. All we know is that George was told not to pursue and then... we don't really know what happened and how Trayvon came to be on top of George bashing his head into concrete.


It all ended in an altercation and the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
Another indicator that you are completely unfamiliar with use of force tactics. "Unarmed" is almost completely irrelevant, yet the BLM idiots keep throwing that word out as if it matters.


I doubt that Trayvon was going to kill Zimmerman, so there was no real threat to his life in my opinion.
So you wouldn't mind having your head bounced off concrete a few times, eh? That is 100% a situation where lethal force is justified in every single state, as there is an immediate and direct threat of serious bodily injury or death.
 
Here is the thing that you and many other "shoot them non-fatally" crowd doesn't get. Guns are only used for deadly force, if you pull your gun out you are doing it because you believe deadly force is necessary. Not to mention that if you are trying to aim at tiny targets like arms and legs you are not likely to hit them, you are likely to hit something you don't want to. A gun is not pulled out to scare or wound, it is pulled out to kill plain and simple.

That's the problem right there. In most cases you can neutralize an unarmed target with just one hit to the torso or the limb. If police in the US don't know better than shoot to kill, it doesn't mean it's the only option.

Not a single witness testified that Mike had his hands up. That was completely made up by BLM.

No prob, he deserved it full stop, then. Can we move on?

You can't just make a blanket statement like that. Someone you don't have to shoot at all; other times you need over a dozen shots. Every case is different.

Let's get it straight. Unless someone is off his rocker on meth or PCP or some other x-men shit, shooting them one or twice is enough to stop them and sometimes enough to kill them. Four or six shots, esp at point blank range, it's a death sentence right there. I might be wrong here, but that is my understanding.


You must shoot until the threat stops. Period.

How can you tell if the threat has stopped when you fire six rounds in a quick succession? Was the first enough? No? Can you prove that?


So you wouldn't mind having your head bounced off concrete a few times, eh? That is 100% a situation where lethal force is justified in every single state, as there is an immediate and direct threat of serious bodily injury or death.

You're taking things out of context. If you were attacked, it's not ok. If you were the attacker and got overpowered, then it's 'ok' in my book. Anyway, imagine living in a country where you're not allowed to carry firearms. Are you going to kill a man with your bare hands or what? People have learnt to deal with it without mercilessly killing each other. So should the US citizens.
 
Last edited:
That's the problem right there. In most cases you can neutralize an unarmed target with just one hit to the torso or the limb. If police in the US don't know better than shoot to kill, it doesn't mean it's the only option.
You clearly have never shot in your life or had any training. Shooting limbs is about as stupid a thing as you can do. You are likely going to miss, you probably won't stop them and even if hit overpenetration is way more likely in something small like a limb.

One of my professors in college was a former cop, and the subject came up in class, they are all trained to shoot center mass. When they draw their guns it is to *kill* it is not to wound, if a suspect stops and complies they don't fire if he doesn't they do. Plain and simple.

How would you know if they are high on PCP?
 
Shoot to kill is a fine policy. The issue is really whether a bullet (or two or three) should be fired in the first place. You can't just shoot people because you think they are pulling a gun, because the risk is that they aren't an you've just gunned down someone that's innocent.


So in any of these situations I fault the cops completely, because they think they are in danger is not a good enough reason to discharge a weapon. The bar has to be set much higher than that
 
How would you know if they are high on PCP?

Okay, I understand that you can't neutralize all targets with a tazer gun. But why approach a regular traffic stop with your pistol? The person might be dangerous, but statistically speaking there is an overwhelming chance that they are not.

Let's say you are a cop and you pull over someone for a busted tail light (like this most recent example), not a hit-and-run, not excessive speeding. First thing you do is you run the plates - no warrants, you see the name of the person who the car is registered to, they have no record or warrants either. Why would you go in with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous criminal, and why would you reach for the pistol first? Try the tazer gun first. Based on the circumstances of the situation, and statistically speaking, the tazer will be enough in the unlikely event that the driver has to be neutralized.

Being a cop is a dangerous profession with a great element of risk, but if a cop approaches a regular traffic stop with the mindset that the driver is dangerous, that officer should not be on active duty.

And most officers are not like that - I've been pulled over, and I have interacted with officers. They have always been calm, respectful, and professional. That's the majority. But the minority of renegade cops can no longer be ignored - there has to be accountability, better training, and frequent performance/psychological checks.


Shoot to kill is a fine policy. The issue is really whether a bullet (or two or three) should be fired in the first place. You can't just shoot people because you think they are pulling a gun, because the risk is that they aren't an you've just gunned down someone that's innocent.


So in any of these situations I fault the cops completely, because they think they are in danger is not a good enough reason to discharge a weapon. The bar has to be set much higher than that

Yes, exactly.
 
Shoot to kill is a fine policy. The issue is really whether a bullet (or two or three) should be fired in the first place. You can't just shoot people because you think they are pulling a gun, because the risk is that they aren't an you've just gunned down someone that's innocent.


So in any of these situations I fault the cops completely, because they think they are in danger is not a good enough reason to discharge a weapon. The bar has to be set much higher than that

That's a perfectly fine and valid opinion but do keep in mind that it's easy to make decisions in hindsight in front of a computer, it's much harder to do it in the middle of the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, I understand that you can't neutralize all targets with a tazer gun. But why approach a regular traffic stop with your pistol? The person might be dangerous, but statistically speaking there is an overwhelming chance that they are not.

Let's say you are a cop and you pull over someone for a busted tail light (like this most recent example), not a hit-and-run, not excessive speeding. First thing you do is you run the plates - no warrants, you see the name of the person who the car is registered to, they have no record or warrants either. Why would you go in with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous criminal, and why would you reach for the pistol first? Try the tazer gun first. Based on the circumstances of the situation, and statistically speaking, the tazer will be enough in the unlikely event that the driver has to be neutralized.

Being a cop is a dangerous profession with a great element of risk, but if a cop approaches a regular traffic stop with the mindset that the driver is dangerous, that officer should not be on active duty.
We are talking about two different things here. There are specific situations in which one can question the officer's judgement, which is what you are doing. However I am talking the general idea of deadly force, freefall's "shoot in the leg" is plain stupid. As far as using a tazer or similar is concerned it's also down to the situation, pulling out a tazer, putting it away/dropping it, grabbing a gun all take time.
 
That's a perfectly fine and valid opinion but do keep in mind that it's easy to make decisions in hindsight in front of a computer, it's much harder to do it in the middle of the situation.

I think hundreds of thousands of cops probably face similar situations many times during their careers but make the right decision to not use force. Millions globally

In several of the high profile cases we've seen the officers involved having pretty bad records.

But by and large, it's not that difficult to make the right decision in these situations as its done all the time I'm sure. Frankly, I think the officers that have been involved in many of these abuse of force cases probably weren't cut out to be cops.

It's also a mindset. Approach situations assuming people aren't bad guys out to kill you. Especially if you pulled someone over for a routine stop
 
You clearly have never shot in your life or had any training. Shooting limbs is about as stupid a thing as you can do. You are likely going to miss, you probably won't stop them and even if hit overpenetration is way more likely in something small like a limb.

Yes, 'clearly' so. Thanks for your informed opinion.

When they draw their guns it is to *kill* it is not to wound.

My point exactly.

I think you're failing to understand what I am trying to say, so there's no point going with this furhter.
 
I think hundreds of thousands of cops probably face similar situations many times during their careers but make the right decision to not use force. Millions globally

In several of the high profile cases we've seen the officers involved having pretty bad records.

But by and large, it's not that difficult to make the right decision in these situations as its done all the time I'm sure. Frankly, I think the officers that have been involved in many of these abuse of force cases probably weren't cut out to be cops.

It's also a mindset. Approach situations assuming people aren't bad guys out to kill you. Especially if you pulled someone over for a routine stop

Actually majority of police in the US never draw their weapon in the line of duty. I'm not disputing that abuse of power happens, or that bad decisions are made for bad reasons only that your idea of "try non-lethal first" isn't always feasible.
 
Yes, 'clearly' so. Thanks for your informed opinion.
Do you know how to shoot?



My point exactly.

I think you're failing to understand what I am trying to say, so there's no point going with this furhter.
Oh I understand what you are trying to say it just so happens that what you are trying to say makes absolutely no sense. Police use non-lethal force all the time, but when the decision to use deadly force has already been made then it is used to *kill*. That's what you see to be failing to understand. You can argue whether the use of such force is justified in specific cases.
 
Do you know how to shoot?

Yes, I've been trained to shoot standard issue military pistols and automatic rifles. I also did shoot some hunting rifles and small caliber rifles a few times. I didn't undergo any extensive training, though, that was pretty basic.

Most of the recent killings (especially the latest two) were from a close to very close range, and the target was not moving (walking, running, ducking). So the officers had a pretty good chance of hitting any part of the body with as many shots as they deemed necessary. Anyway, hitting the target in the torso once or twice is, in my understanding, enough to stop them and even immobilize them without killing them.

I know for a fact that police in some countries do not shoot suspects fatally on purpose, unless there's an actual firefight or the suspect has a firearm or some other kind of dangerous weapon which puts the officer's life at risk. Killing of an unarmed man who is not wanted for any serious offence is viewed as a very bad situation for everyone, including the police officer(s) involved. Most of the time warning shots are fired first, an it's a rule.

I understand that the fact that firearms are available to the general public in the US and, worse still, CC permits are given out in certain states, makes things much harder for police and puts them at greater risk. But I still think that their current attitude is over the top.


Oh I understand what you are trying to say it just so happens that what you are trying to say makes absolutely no sense. Police use non-lethal force all the time, but when the decision to use deadly force has already been made then it is used to *kill*. That's what you see to be failing to understand. You can argue whether the use of such force is justified in specific cases.

What I can not understand is why a gun is seen as a shoot-to-kill weapon only. If you have your pistol drawn for whatever reason, you don't have time to use the taser or the spray or anything else. Basically, as I understand it, what you're saying is norm is that if you have your gun pointed at a suspect and something he does threatens you (or at least you think it threatens you, which might not be the case at all), then you kill the person with no other options. Even if the person is not armed. That sounds plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I've been trained to shoot standard issue military pistols and automatic rifles. I also did shoot some hunting rifles and small caliber rifles a few times. I didn't undergo any extensive training, though, that was pretty basic.
Then you should know that it's not exactly easy to hit the exact thing you are aiming at.

Most of the recent killings (especially the latest two) were from a close to very close range, and the target was not moving (walking, running, ducking). So the officers had a pretty good chance of hitting any part of the body with as many shots as they deemed necessary. Anyway, hitting the target in the torso once or twice is, in my understanding, enough to stop them and even immobilize them without killing them.
That understanding is wrong, there was a video posted wayyyy back of people walking off one or two shots to the torso.

I know for a fact that police in some countries do not shoot suspects fatally on purpose, unless there's an actual firefight or the suspect has a firearm or some other kind of dangerous weapon which puts the officer's life at risk. Killing of an unarmed man who is not wanted for any serious offence is viewed as a very bad situation for everyone, including the police officer(s) involved. Most of the time warning shots are fired first, an it's a rule.
Different countries, different procedures.
I understand that the fact that firearms are available to the general public in the US and, worse still, CC permits are given out in certain states, makes things much harder for police and puts them at greater risk. But I still think that their current attitude is over the top.
It's not availability of firearms its divisive "war" rhetoric, PDs in the US are "fighting a war" meaning that it becomes us vs them very quickly and they start viewing gen pop as enemy combatants (I think Blind posted that in the gun politics thread already)


What I can not understand is why a gun is seen as a shoot-to-kill weapon only. If you have your pistol drawn for whatever reason, you don't have time to use the taser or the spray or anything else. Basically, as I understand it, what you're saying is norm is that if you have your gun pointed at a suspect and something he does threatens you (or at least you think it threatens you, which might not be the case at all), then you kill the person with no other options. Even if the person is not armed. That sounds plain wrong.
Because it is a deadly weapon used to inflict fatal injuries. If the gun is drawn the situation is dangerous enough to warrant it*. As far as unarmed person goes there are plenty of cases of officers getting shot with their own guns by a suspect who is near enough them to overpower them.

*Again we can argue whether specific case(s) were dangerous enough to justify the drawing of the weapon in the first place.
 
That's the problem right there. In most cases you can neutralize an unarmed target with just one hit to the torso or the limb.
[...]
Let's get it straight. Unless someone is off his rocker on meth or PCP or some other x-men shit, shooting them one or twice is enough to stop them and sometimes enough to kill them. Four or six shots, esp at point blank range, it's a death sentence right there. I might be wrong here, but that is my understanding.
This is not correct. Handgun rounds are not capable of inducing enough damage to be a laser beam of destruction. There are only three ways to stop someone:
1) Psychological - "holy shit I've been shot" is a pretty powerful psychological weapon, even though the person may be able to physically continue the fight. There was a story last week or so about a guy that got shot by a stray bullet and didn't realize it for several days.
2) Central nervous system - the only way to produce a one-shot-stop. Think brain (headshot) or spinal cord (most handgun rounds don't penetrate deep enough to hit it).
3) Blood loss - self-explanatory; takes time.


No prob, he deserved it full stop, then. Can we move on?
Things like this are important to point out because the entire BLM movement is based on lies and misinformation. Just like Alton Sterling's very recent demise - the guy was resisting arrest and reaching for a gun!


You're taking things out of context. If you were attacked, it's not ok. If you were the attacker and got overpowered, then it's 'ok' in my book. Anyway, imagine living in a country where you're not allowed to carry firearms. Are you going to kill a man with your bare hands or what? People have learnt to deal with it without mercilessly killing each other. So should the US citizens.
If I'm "attacked and overpowered", all bets are off - my life is at stake and, quite frankly, I no longer give a damn about my attacker's life.


Okay, I understand that you can't neutralize all targets with a tazer gun. But why approach a regular traffic stop with your pistol? The person might be dangerous, but statistically speaking there is an overwhelming chance that they are not.

Let's say you are a cop and you pull over someone for a busted tail light (like this most recent example), not a hit-and-run, not excessive speeding. First thing you do is you run the plates - no warrants, you see the name of the person who the car is registered to, they have no record or warrants either. Why would you go in with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous criminal, and why would you reach for the pistol first? Try the tazer gun first. Based on the circumstances of the situation, and statistically speaking, the tazer will be enough in the unlikely event that the driver has to be neutralized.

Being a cop is a dangerous profession with a great element of risk, but if a cop approaches a regular traffic stop with the mindset that the driver is dangerous, that officer should not be on active duty.

And most officers are not like that - I've been pulled over, and I have interacted with officers. They have always been calm, respectful, and professional. That's the majority. But the minority of renegade cops can no longer be ignored - there has to be accountability, better training, and frequent performance/psychological checks.
If you're specifically referring to the incident with Philandro Castile, then please, let's not speculate - we don't yet know why the officer had his gun out. I can tell you with some confidence that cops don't normally walk up to cars with guns drawn.


Actually majority of police in the US never draw their weapon in the line of duty. I'm not disputing that abuse of power happens, or that bad decisions are made for bad reasons only that your idea of "try non-lethal first" isn't always feasible.
Most US cops never practice. They do like 50 rounds a year for quals and that's it.


Killing of an unarmed man who is not wanted for any serious offence is viewed as a very bad situation for everyone, including the police officer(s) involved.
"Unarmed" is a silly CNN term and has little to do with justified use of lethal force. I'm 5'10" and 175lbs - if I am attacked by someone who is 6'5" and 270lbs, I am legally justified to defend myself with a firearm because there is a discrepancy of force at play. Same thing if I have prior knowledge that my attacker is a martial artist. Same thing if I am outnumbered. Same thing if someone pulls out a plastic knife that looks real. Etc etc etc


Most of the time warning shots are fired first, an it's a rule.
Warning shots are a bad idea because a) you have no idea where that round is going to go, and b) if you have time to fire warning shots, you probably shouldn't have pulled out a gun to begin with. In many, if not most, states, warning shots can land you in handcuffs.


What I can not understand is why a gun is seen as a shoot-to-kill weapon only. If you have your pistol drawn for whatever reason, you don't have time to use the taser or the spray or anything else. Basically, as I understand it, what you're saying is norm is that if you have your gun pointed at a suspect and something he does threatens you (or at least you think it threatens you, which might not be the case at all), then you kill the person with no other options. Even if the person is not armed. That sounds plain wrong.
A gun is a measure of absolute last resort. You use it only when there is an imminent (and credible and serious etc) threat of serious bodily injury or death to you or someone else. Essentially, if you pulled out a gun and, to use your previous example, fired a warning shot, then clearly you weren't in fear for your life and shouldn't have pulled out a gun - if you were, you wouldn't shot them. Also, if you do have to shoot, you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill the threat - the most effective way to stop someone is to shoot center mass. If you were trying to "kill" them, you'd go for the head, yet no one ever does that.
 
Top