Page 171 of 174

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:16 am UTC
by Coyne
Chen wrote:Forgetting the lack of punishment for the moment (which is sadly not unexpected) what would the charge have been here? The person didnt die. There was no intent to kill. Would it have just been assault? Assault with a deadly weapon? Some sort of attempted murder?

I'm not sure. Let's have a civilian black man accidentally shoot a person instead of tasering him and see how he gets charged. No doubt that would be fair, right?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:15 am UTC
by idonno
If you completely believe their story, they accidentally shot someone who was trying to hide evidence, both left the cell so the wounded man was alone with the evidence, and he managed to dispose of it while they were gone.

Police have training for handling gunshot wounds. How is it not a major issue that they both abandoned someone in their care after accidentally shooting him (even if it was only for a bit)? How is it not a major issue that they knowingly left the guy alone with a piece of evidence that they knew he was trying to dispose of?

Without even calling into question their story or bringing up how bad accidentally shooting someone instead of tasering them is, I don't see how you can not come to the conclusion that these two officers lack the competency to do their job properly.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:43 pm UTC
by Crissa
Sableagle wrote:I think the use of these things counts as misbehaviour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-dQj8N196g


...If you bring a key, you can unlock a gun? This is news?

This is a device to slow a thief or small child. Which is what it does. Of course it could be defeated by specific lockpicking devices. It is not and never was designed to stop an adult from permanently accessing the locked device.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:40 pm UTC
by SDK
Crissa wrote:This is a device to slow a thief or small child. Which is what it does. Of course it could be defeated by specific lockpicking devices. It is not and never was designed to stop an adult from permanently accessing the locked device.

Surely a child being able to accidentally access one of these counts as failure though, right? The child in the video was obviously trained, but can you not imagine a child picking up and dropping something at some point, then curiously looking inside when it opens after the fall?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:46 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Regarding the police rifle lock, it does not show a child opening the lock, it shows an adult (probably locksmith) opening it with lock-picking devises.

Regarding the gun safe video, I'm skeptical of how much editing happened. I consider it bad faith that it didn't mention training the child for the specific safes. At the extreme end, maybe the safes weren't even locked at the start of those clips? On a more moderate end, the drop-then-open clip starts in the middle of the child interacting with the safe, maybe that was the child's hundredth attempt?

Also, (to the best of my knowledge) gun safes that small are pretty rare, and should themselves be kept both out of reach of children and hidden from them.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 pm UTC
by addams
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Also, (to the best of my knowledge) gun safes that small are pretty rare, and should themselves be kept both out of reach of children and hidden from them.
Yep.
And; A safe used properly is secured to the floor joists, wall studs or ceiling joists
by hardware that is accessed from the inside of the safe.

What the Hell good is a safe you can pick up and carry away?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:17 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Quizatzhaderac wrote:Regarding the police rifle lock, it does not show a child opening the lock, it shows an adult (probably locksmith) opening it with lock-picking devises.
A magnet and the key from a set of novelty handcuffs bought for $5 at the nearest branch of Ann Summers?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:59 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Mea culpa, I didn't actually watch the video with sound and I said a stupid thing.

That said, police firearms being stolen isn't that much of an issue. That's not a very good lock, but it doesn't really need to be. Robbing a cop car is still a comically inefficient way of acquiring a firearm.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 12:45 am UTC
by Thesh
Sandra Bland, who the police say committed suicide in her jail cell in 2015, had apparently recorded her arrest, which the police withheld.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8 ... age-is-out

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 08, 2019 2:22 am UTC
by addams
Thesh wrote:Sandra Bland, who the police say committed suicide in her jail cell in 2015, had apparently recorded her arrest, which the police withheld.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8 ... age-is-out
Oh....I did not know Sandra.
But,...Her story has haunted me.

From the very start, I think of her as often as I think of people I did know.
I forgot her name once. It didn't take long to find her on Google.

She was a healthy young woman.
Her future was so bright.

In my heart, somehow, I just know.
She did not kill herself.

Sandra was murdered.
The man or men that did it will get away with it.

Let's not let ourselves think of how awful her murder must have been for her.
Let's not let ourselves think of all the other Black men and women who's murders are our History.

Our History is still being made the same old ugly way.
(sniff...) To think...To know...Sandra was lynched.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 10:25 pm UTC
by Thesh
I can't believe I didn't hear about this one until today:

Police shoot three children in the head - no deaths

Plain clothes officers approach car with guns drawn, father accelerates towards them, police open fire and shoot the children. The father had no way of knowing if they were cops.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 2:07 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
ebony.com wrote:The names of two officers involved in the shooting of three children in Hugo, OK have been released over a week after the tragic incident took place.
I keep wondering at what point we'll stop calling police shooting at black kids "tragic" and start calling it "attempted murder".

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 7:06 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Not as long as legally killing people remains in the jurisdiction of regular cops and not a special segment. Theres a reason why some special British cops are armed but most arent.

A police officer killing someone is not justice, no matter what the circumstances are. Yes, the person could be an immediate danger and blah blah, but at no point was a trial involved, were there public courts, appeals, etc. We need to start viewing even "good shoots" as catastrophic fuckups.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 7:29 am UTC
by elasto
CorruptUser wrote:Not as long as legally killing people remains in the jurisdiction of regular cops and not a special segment. Theres a reason why some special British cops are armed but most arent.

A police officer killing someone is not justice, no matter what the circumstances are. Yes, the person could be an immediate danger and blah blah, but at no point was a trial involved, were there public courts, appeals, etc. We need to start viewing even "good shoots" as catastrophic fuckups.

Spot on.

In the UK, every police shooting is automatically referred to the IPCC - an independent body charged with investigating police misconduct.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 1:28 pm UTC
by Sableagle
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cop-kille ... wsuit-says
Timmy had been sleepless on the night of June 13 of last year. He then texted two of his friends to meet him at his home.

The trio of boys went swimming and at some point they separated. Hill’s two friends decided that “it would be funny… to leave their wet underwear on someone’s vehicle as they walked home,” according to the civil lawsuit. Strolling by Trooper B.D. Gillespie’s home at around 11:30 p.m. they ditched their wet drawers on the cruiser before booking it.

Gillespie’s wife apparently witnessed the boys and informed her husband.

He then took it upon himself to put in some overtime and determine who was behind the underwear incident. The lawsuit documents go on to question why the trooper felt the need to “warrant an official response.” The trooper “put his uniform on, made a call into his unit to place himself on duty at approximately 11:51 p.m.” to find the boxer short bandits.

The trooper hopped into his cruiser and drove around “for several hours to no avail,” according to the lawsuit.

By 1:30 a.m., the lawsuit states, Trooper Gillespie “was frustrated by his failure to identify the responsible party for the prank” before he came to the Hill home.

The court papers say that Trooper Gillespie threatened Hill’s mother with a $250 summons for “setting their trash out too early for pick-up” and then told her he had the law on his side when it came to Timmy.

The trooper allegedly told her he could take Timmy Hill to jail and “could do what he wanted to those who ‘caught his eye,’ like Timmy,” the papers say.

Apparently Hill explained that he hadn’t had a hand in the underwear affair. Then Timmy extinguished his cigarette and all three teens took their hands out of their pockets. The trooper let the other two walk.

Crews recalled that once they tussled into the drainage ditch that “we continued to struggle.” “Gillespie then pulled out his gun, aimed it at an unarmed teenger…and fired his weapon at Timmy, hitting Timmy in the head,” according to the lawsuit.

“Timmy was still struggling,” Crews said. “It happened so fast, I’m just glad I didn’t get shot.”

And then Gillespie fired again, this time striking the boy “in the chest,” according to the court papers. When paramedics arrived they found the boy face down, submerged in water, implying, according to the lawsuit, that Gillespie “did not even check the body to see if Timmy may have been still alive…he left Timmy’s face down underwater…”

But what’s unclear is if Gillespie was given a sobriety test after firing his gun in this incident. “I don’t know the exact answer other than there was a full investigation conducted to determine the cause of the incident,” he said. And what about other incidents where Gillespie allegedly fired his service weapon on mutltiple calls, killing dogs. “I know he has used his weapon before but I’m not aware of the full extent of the discharging of his weapon,” Pullin said.

On how the young boy and his teen pals managed to be part of a formal call for tossing some wet underwear on the hood, Pullin said that it’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback but that the Gillespie family were scared. “The trooper responded and it was a response to what he considered a threat.”


Having two friends who tossed wet underwear onto a car in the middle of the night apparently constitutes an immediate threat to life, now.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 2:48 pm UTC
by solune
It's america, so let's look at the bright side:
  • The murderer did not empty his whole magazine
  • He also managed to not kill the bystander

On the negative side, the only thing to remember is:
the county prosecutor declined to file criminal charges

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 3:30 pm UTC
by Chen
@Sableagle did you just randomly cut and paste paragraphs from that article into your summary? It makes no fucking sense.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 6:40 pm UTC
by ijuin
Exactly. The whole incident does not make sense.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 7:31 pm UTC
by Dauric
The article goes in to a little more backstory detail, but the overall incident makes sense really. One might not -want- it to make sense but the general string of events holds together.

Rambunctious youth vandalizes a police car with his underwear, control-freak of a police officer snaps and decides to use his job authority to put the youth "in his place", things escalate until they get out of hand and the officer double-taps the kid (shot to head and chest).

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 8:44 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Dauric wrote:Rambunctious youth vandalizes a police car with his underwear, control-freak of a police officer snaps and decides to use his job authority to put the youth "in his place", things escalate until they get out of hand and the officer double-taps the kid (shot to head and chest).
Except that the teenager didn't even do the vandalizing. It was the two kids that he let go that did it; the kid he straight-up murdered didn't have anything to do with it. I mean, not that it matters. Last I checked, the punishment for throwing soggy underwear at a car wasn't "death by gun".

By the way! Fun fact: Last I checked, this kid-killin' cop is still on the force. No charges, no discipline, no consequences. The parents received 700,000 dollars in damages. Problem solved!

Man, I sure am glad we have so many people courageous enough to support the police no matter how many children they murder!

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Sat May 18, 2019 6:23 am UTC
by addams
A bedtime story.
She explains a lot.

She calls it "White Rage.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYUET24K1c

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:04 pm UTC
by cphite
Dauric wrote:The article goes in to a little more backstory detail, but the overall incident makes sense really. One might not -want- it to make sense but the general string of events holds together.

Rambunctious youth vandalizes a police car with his underwear, control-freak of a police officer snaps and decides to use his job authority to put the youth "in his place", things escalate until they get out of hand and the officer double-taps the kid (shot to head and chest).


According to the article, Hill (the youth) was not merely putting up a fight - he was actually on top of Gillespie, to the point where a bystander (Crews) rendered assistance. The three of them rolled into a ditch, where the fight presumably continued - and that was the point when Gillespie drew his weapon and fired.

The reason Gillespie decided to go "on duty" over a minor prank can be explained by his background described in the article - he's a power-obsessed asshole. But that doesn't explain why he let the two who actually did the prank go, and decided to arrest the one who hadn't actually done it. Also doesn't explain why Hill keeps fighting after being pepper sprayed, hit in the head with a baton, and even after rolling into a ditch with an additional person.

Crews made a statement indicating that he believed that the officer felt legitimately threatened by Hill.

My guess... there was an ongoing beef between Hill and Gillespie, even bigger than what the article talks about, and Gillespie used the incident as an excuse to get one up on him. Hill fought back, probably far harder than expected, and the result was a fatal shooting.

As for the legal fallout - or lack thereof - the family was awarded a cash payout because the department knows the incident should have never occurred in the first place. But, from a strictly legal point of view, if Hill was legitimately presenting a threat (as indicated by Crews) there really isn't anything they can charge Gillespie with and make it stick; and they really can't even fire him without it becoming a union issue. Investigating a trivial crime out of sheer pettiness isn't illegal, or even a violation of policy; and once an arrest is underway, no matter how stupid the reason for the arrest might be, an officer has a legal right to use lethal force to defend himself.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:38 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
cphite wrote:...and once an arrest is underway, no matter how stupid the reason for the arrest might be, an officer has a legal right to use lethal force to defend himself.
Or, more specifically: needlessly escalate a confrontation until a victim shows some marginal level of resistance, then use this resistance as your justification to physically assault them -- continuing to escalate the situation until you have sufficient pretense to shoot them in the face under the guise of "self-defense".

I know you're not disagreeing, but I just want to stress: There is absolutely no reason this kid had to die. This officer, knowingly or not, choose to kill him. He's why this teenager is dead.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:53 pm UTC
by Angua
I'm surprised (or am I?) that police officers in the US can just decide to throw on their uniform whenever and basically act as vigilantes in the middle of the night.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:14 pm UTC
by elasto
Angua wrote:I'm surprised (or am I?) that police officers in the US can just decide to throw on their uniform whenever and basically act as vigilantes in the middle of the night.

Agreed. Surely it violates protocol to be patrolling alone also?

cphite wrote:But, from a strictly legal point of view, if Hill was legitimately presenting a threat (as indicated by Crews) there really isn't anything they can charge Gillespie with and make it stick; and they really can't even fire him without it becoming a union issue.

Did the officer really do nothing wrong by not lifting the boy's head out from under the water after having shot him?

Or did the officer still justifiably think he was a threat after he had been immobile for minutes under water..?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:24 pm UTC
by addams
Angua wrote:I'm surprised (or am I?) that police officers in the US can just decide to throw on their uniform whenever and basically act as vigilantes in the middle of the night.
yes.
It's a terrifying situation.

We live here day in and day out ignoring the risk.
We get in cars and zoom down roadways that kill three thousand of us each month, too.

sigh.... We are just not good at assessing risk.
Being young and/or black raises our risk factors.

Most of us are white and we shrug off the risk.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:47 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
elasto wrote:Did the officer really do nothing wrong by not lifting the boy's head out from under the water after having shot him?
I mean, that's clearly awful, but from a legal standpoint -- if it was the gunshots that killed him -- I can't imagine it's a criminal act.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 7:16 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
The Great Hippo wrote:
cphite wrote:...and once an arrest is underway, no matter how stupid the reason for the arrest might be, an officer has a legal right to use lethal force to defend himself.
Or, more specifically: needlessly escalate a confrontation until a victim shows some marginal level of resistance, then use this resistance as your justification to physically assault them -- continuing to escalate the situation until you have sufficient pretense to shoot them in the face under the guise of "self-defense".

I know you're not disagreeing, but I just want to stress: There is absolutely no reason this kid had to die. This officer, knowingly or not, choose to kill him. He's why this teenager is dead.
IMHO if this is to be categorized as a crime, it's important to figure out specifically where and how.

I'd suggest the crime is "making a situation out of little or nothing", which is an abuse of power. The officer is responsible (as a form of negligence) of any consequences of the situation, in addition to not rendering aid.
Angua wrote:I'm surprised (or am I?) that police officers in the US can just decide to throw on their uniform whenever and basically act as vigilantes in the middle of the night.
My first blush reaction is to say that he department was too small to be "properly" compartmentalized, and that officers have to be expected to act of their own imitative.

Looking at the numbers (if West Virginia's state police were evenly distributed with population) there would be 20 state police officers in that county. So I guess that's just about large enough for a "don't deal with own neighbors policy".
elasto wrote:Agreed. Surely it violates protocol to be patrolling alone also?

As for patrolling in pairs, I'm certain that's not the policy there. The (statistical) 20 state police officers and 30 sheriff's department officers would make 50 officers for the county, which is less than a third of the American average per population (86/100000 versus 288/100000).

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 7:17 pm UTC
by elasto
The Great Hippo wrote:I mean, that's clearly awful, but from a legal standpoint -- if it was the gunshots that killed him -- I can't imagine it's a criminal act.

That's shocking. The police should have a clear legal duty to try to save a person's life once they have been neutralised as a threat.

(And I'm not saying he committed a crime in not doing so (though I'm not not saying that), but it's telling that it doesn't even rise to the level of dismissal that he made no effort in that regard.

It shows a shocking lack of humanity if nothing else - a contempt that should be unacceptable in a public servant.)

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 7:57 pm UTC
by ijuin
There’s the key phrase: public servant. Too many of them want to act like they are Public Masters instead.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:36 pm UTC
by PAstrychef
elasto wrote:That's shocking. The police should have a clear legal duty to try to save a person's life once they have been neutralised as a threat.

It shows a shocking lack of humanity if nothing else - a contempt that should be unacceptable in a public servant.)

The police don’t even have a legal duty to protect anyone other than themselves.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:43 pm UTC
by cphite
elasto wrote:
Angua wrote:I'm surprised (or am I?) that police officers in the US can just decide to throw on their uniform whenever and basically act as vigilantes in the middle of the night.

Agreed. Surely it violates protocol to be patrolling alone also?

cphite wrote:But, from a strictly legal point of view, if Hill was legitimately presenting a threat (as indicated by Crews) there really isn't anything they can charge Gillespie with and make it stick; and they really can't even fire him without it becoming a union issue.

Did the officer really do nothing wrong by not lifting the boy's head out from under the water after having shot him?


I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Or did the officer still justifiably think he was a threat after he had been immobile for minutes under water..?


As I said, I believe there is a lot more to this story than what's being said in the article. I think there was a long-standing personal grudge between the two of them, and that the officer either used this incident as an excuse to basically murder this kid; or that at the very least the grudge led one or both of them to act stupidly, which led to a stupid interaction turning tragic.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:47 pm UTC
by elasto
cphite wrote:I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Wrong, but not wrong enough to get fired over apparently...

Is the US so desperately short of qualified candidates that they couldn't do better than him..?

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:38 pm UTC
by sardia
elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Wrong, but not wrong enough to get fired over apparently...

Is the US so desperately short of qualified candidates that they couldn't do better than him..?

The best cops get hoarded by rich white suburbs. The rejects are hired by the desperate poor areas.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:55 pm UTC
by addams
sardia wrote:The best cops get hoarded by rich white suburbs.
The rejects are hired by the desperate poor areas.
Desperate poor areas are forced to hire them.
I can't help thinking some areas would be better off without uniformed, armed and dangerous loonies.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 11:13 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
sardia wrote:
elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Wrong, but not wrong enough to get fired over apparently...

Is the US so desperately short of qualified candidates that they couldn't do better than him..?

The best cops get hoarded by rich white suburbs. The rejects are hired by the desperate poor areas.

Or shuffled off to there when there are too many complaints about them elsewhere, much akin to rapist priests.

cphite wrote:
elasto wrote:Did the officer really do nothing wrong by not lifting the boy's head out from under the water after having shot him?

I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Well yeah it probably wasn't illegal on account of police have no duty to actually protect anyone, and checking to see if the person you just shot is still alive but drowning comes too close to potentially protecting them to be required by law.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:50 pm UTC
by cphite
elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:I think it was definitely wrong... but not necessarily illegal.

Wrong, but not wrong enough to get fired over apparently...

Is the US so desperately short of qualified candidates that they couldn't do better than him..?


That's actually part of it, yes; there is a shortage of experienced law officers.

That said, it's very difficult to fire one over actions that aren't technically illegal or violations of department policy; even when the actions are very stupid.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:08 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
elasto wrote:Is the US so desperately short of qualified candidates that they couldn't do better than him..?
In West Virginia? Stereotypically? Yes.

Regarding the actual county, the county sheriff's depart has a website, so we know that they have 30 officers, whereas they should probably have about 120. Presumably a department that doesn't have a budget for half enough police doesn't have the budget for better officers.

The officer in question is a state officer, which I'm guessing in that situation has a lot of pressure to fulfill the gaps from the local police.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 2:45 am UTC
by CorruptUser
I think the article is missing some key information, either pro- or anti- the police's story, but I don't think a cop that has repeatedly killed dogs should have been allowed to stay on the force long enough to escalate up to humans...


Hmm, I wonder if there is any study that has determined if officers who have shot unarmed suspects strongly overlap with officers who have shot "dangerous" pets. Just a hunch, but I'd guess that "has killed a dog" would be the number one indicator of a cop that may go on to kill a human.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 5:56 am UTC
by Dauric
CorruptUser wrote:Hmm, I wonder if there is any study that has determined if officers who have shot unarmed suspects strongly overlap with officers who have shot "dangerous" pets. Just a hunch, but I'd guess that "has killed a dog" would be the number one indicator of a cop that may go on to kill a human.


Not aware of any studies that are specifically about police, but animal abuse is often a sign of the potential to abuse human beings.