Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, I agree with all you say except there is one point which, while I don’t oppose it, I am actually wondering what your thoughts are and whether we should consider it further.

If the officer followed procedure in every detail and stayed completely within policy, is he innocent, as you said?

If he's following procedure and not over-stepping the boundaries of the reasonable application of the restraint technique then he should not be convicted.

He's a sheep without the capacity for good judgment, but that doesn't cross my evidence threshold for "lock him in jail and throw away the key".

Certainly, to know, or be able to know, that a current procedure that came down from above and is part of a thorough training program—to know that that procedure could result in harm, is more than can reasonably be expected of most regular people, including frontline cops.

So the officer’s defense could be that he was just following procedure given to him by the higher-ups. He could point out that the people who wrote the policy are the ones who should know whether it could cause harm, and they should know that before putting it into training.

But I recall that Hitler’s henchmen used the just following orders defense and it did not get them off at trial. They seemed to sincerely think that they were innocent, but they were not excused for their actions in following Hitler’s policies.

Do you think that you, as a cop, and me, as an ex-corrections type, have a problem on our hands?

I don't think the Nuremberg defence applies in this case.

There was no direct order and prior precedent of the technique being used by other officers without harm. There's plausible deniability here and this is the part the courts will have to untangle.

If the officer genuinely didn't think the technique is lethal, then he would have no basis on refusing an order - even if one was given.

There's no plausible deniability when you are ordered to shoot people in the head.

[commonsense]

Skepdick, I agree with all you say except there is one point which, while I don’t oppose it, I am actually wondering what your thoughts are and whether we should consider it further.

If the officer followed procedure in every detail and stayed completely within policy, is he innocent, as you said?

If he's following procedure and not over-stepping the boundaries of the reasonable application of the restraint technique then he should not be convicted.

He's a sheep without the capacity for good judgments, but that doesn't cross my evidence threshold for murder.

Certainly, to know, or be able to know, that a current procedure that came down from above and is part of a thorough training program—to know that that procedure could result in harm, is more than can reasonably be expected of most regular people, including frontline cops.

So the officer’s defense could be that he was just following procedure given to him by the higher-ups. He could point out that the people who wrote the policy are the ones who should know whether it could cause harm, and they should know that before putting it into training.

But I recall that Hitler’s henchmen used the just following orders defense and it did not get them off at trial. They seemed to sincerely think that they were innocent, but they were not excused for their actions in following Hitler’s policies.

Do you think that you, as a cop, and me, as an ex-corrections type, have a problem on our hands?

I don't think the Nuremberg defence applies in this case.

There was no direct order and prior precedent of the technique being used by other officers without harm. There's plausible deniability here and this is the part the courts will have to untangle.

If the officer genuinely didn't think the technique is lethal, then he would have no basis on refusing an order - even if one was given.

There's no plausible deniability when you are ordered to shoot people in the head.

I appreciate your comments. I understand (correctly or not) that you are or were a police officer.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a problem.

A man in the custody of law enforcement died while law enforcement was applying force to the man.

That’s a problem.

seems to me: that's the result of the problem

is the problem: poor or inadequate training?

is the problem: institutional bigotry?

is the problem: qualified immunity?

I think it's the immunity

There's also the overmighty public sector union which won't allow its members - no matter their incompetence - to be permanently excluded from the profession following misconduct. Similar to the way you guys somehow cannot sack even the most utterly shit teachers. The rest of the developed world kicks bad cops and teachers out of those professions entirely. The same unions are also responsible for the system under which officers with multiple brutality accusations can keep those secret, and these secrets are probably bad.

And there's the weird way in which American office holders, from dog catcher to county judge and DA, are elected. There is a study which shows that average jail terms handed out by judges in their re-election years are higher than the rest of the time, suggesting that conflicting interests can undermine justice. But probably worse in this instance is that the person running for DA will in almost all cases try to get the backing of the only unions that happen to care and make donations in this matter - which is the police unions, and there is the suspicion of a little quid pro quo there. This might go some way towards explaining why American prosecutors so often cite the need to maintain a healthy working relationship with the police, and it might also go some way towards explaining why that grand jury was presented only with a reckless firearms charge for an incident that occurred outside the building, when they were theoretically supposed to be considering the charges that migth arrise fro kicking in somebody's door and shooting her dead in her bed.

On top of that, your police aren't backed by a lot of other services for handling vulnerable and mentally unwell. Meanwhile they are correctly but unhelpfully trained to see every interaction with the public as a possible armed conflict. You don't need to throw a huge amount of racism into such a combustible mix to get a fairly large bang, the system seems dangerously set up to amplify even the slightest mistrust.

[henry quirk]

There is a problem.

A man in the custody of law enforcement died while law enforcement was applying force to the man.

That’s a problem.

seems to me: that's the result of the problem

is the problem: poor or inadequate training?

is the problem: institutional bigotry?

is the problem: qualified immunity?

I think it's the immunity

There's also the overmighty public sector union which won't allow its members - no matter their incompetence - to be permanently excluded from the profession following misconduct. Similar to the way you guys somehow cannot sack even the most utterly shit teachers. The rest of the developed world kicks bad cops and teachers out of those professions entirely. The same unions are also responsible for the system under which officers with multiple brutality accusations can keep those secret, and these secrets are probably bad.

And there's the weird way in which American office holders, from dog catcher to county judge and DA, are elected. There is a study which shows that average jail terms handed out by judges in their re-election years are higher than the rest of the time, suggesting that conflicting interests can undermine justice. But probably worse in this instance is that the person running for DA will in almost all cases try to get the backing of the only unions that happen to care and make donations in this matter - which is the police unions, and there is the suspicion of a little quid pro quo there. This might go some way towards explaining why American prosecutors so often cite the need to maintain a healthy working relationship with the police, and it might also go some way towards explaining why that grand jury was presented only with a reckless firearms charge for an incident that occurred outside the building, when they were theoretically supposed to be considering the charges that migth arrise fro kicking in somebody's door and shooting her dead in her bed.

On top of that, your police aren't backed by a lot of other services for handling vulnerable and mentally unwell. Meanwhile they are correctly but unhelpfully trained to see every interaction with the public as a possible armed conflict. You don't need to throw a huge amount of racism into such a combustible mix to get a fairly large bang, the system seems dangerously set up to amplify even the slightest mistrust.

you're right: unions, and union money, are contributors...bringing us, in a weird way, back to qualified immunity

i wonder how much union money went into securin' that?

throw in some militarization, sprinkle on some agitprop, and: powder keg

[henry quirk]

There is a problem.

A man in the custody of law enforcement died while law enforcement was applying force to the man.

That’s a problem.

seems to me: that's the result of the problem

is the problem: poor or inadequate training?

is the problem: institutional bigotry?

is the problem: qualified immunity?

I think it's the immunity

Good point.

I think the problem is immunity of law enforcement officers, and I would add to that the immunity the policy authors have (in general and mebbe in this case) for creating a fucked up policy (in this case they mebbe didn’t include a time limit for how long a neck restraint can be applied).

that law makers & - enforcers are often exempt from, or shielded from the consequences of, the laws they craft and enforce is damned close to the root of things, yeah

[Immanuel Can]

that law makers & - enforcers are often exempt from, or shielded from the consequences of, the laws they craft and enforce is damned close to the root of things, yeah

How did we manage to conclude that GF's death was a law enforcement incompetence issue? What happened to the racism explanation everybody's so quick to believe? And what about fentanyl...does that come into play at all?

Just asking.

[Skepdick]

How did we manage to conclude that GF's death was a law enforcement incompetence issue? What happened to the racism explanation everybody's so quick to believe? And what about fentanyl...does that come into play at all?

Just asking.

You must be the only retard who thinks it's about "the explanation".

Just because a justification is fallacious it doesn't mean the outrage is unjustified. Fallacy fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

You are the only...

No longer interested in you. You're just looking to gainsay without thinking. And you're boring.

[Skepdick]

No longer interested in you. You're just looking to gainsay without thinking. And you're boring.

Ah, well, if entertainment value is all you are after then here's a thought on curing your boredom.

Go to a BLM protest, demand some "evidence" and sound arguments, then play the semantic stand-off game.

Persuade them with your thinking and Philosophical prowess! And film it, please - I'd pay good money to watch that video.

[henry quirk]

that law makers & - enforcers are often exempt from, or shielded from the consequences of, the laws they craft and enforce is damned close to the root of things, yeah

How did we manage to conclude that GF's death was a law enforcement incompetence issue? What happened to the racism explanation everybody's so quick to believe? And what about fentanyl...does that come into play at all?

Just asking.

we ain't concluded diddly about squat

[SteveKlinko]

Skep, I asked you earlier if the officer followed procedure correctly, do you think just-following-orders would be a successful defense, in your opinion. Just curious.

He was not simply following an Order to go put his knee on the suspects neck. After sizing up the situation, he made the decision to use a technique to subdue a resisting suspect that had been used 400 times in the previous 8 years. Nobody Ordered him to do that.

[Skepdick]

After sizing up the situation, he made the decision to use a technique to subdue a resisting suspect that had been used 400 times in the previous 8 years. Nobody Ordered him to do that.

8 minutes and 40 seconds later.... "This subduing thing is not working. Maybe I am doing it wrong? Should I try something else? Naaaah - just wait a little longer till it kicks in!"

[commonsense]

Skep, I asked you earlier if the officer followed procedure correctly, do you think just-following-orders would be a successful defense, in your opinion. Just curious.

He was not simply following an Order to go put his knee on the suspects neck. After sizing up the situation, he made the decision to use a technique to subdue a resisting suspect that had been used 400 times in the previous 8 years. Nobody Ordered him to do that.

I understand, but I guess that what I meant to say was that what if a cop had been given an order or was correctly following the written instructions from a policy, would that cop have plausible deniability?

[Immanuel Can]

that law makers & - enforcers are often exempt from, or shielded from the consequences of, the laws they craft and enforce is damned close to the root of things, yeah

How did we manage to conclude that GF's death was a law enforcement incompetence issue? What happened to the racism explanation everybody's so quick to believe? And what about fentanyl...does that come into play at all?

Just asking.

we ain't concluded diddly about squat

Oh, good.

But I do notice that everyone's dropped the "racism" explanation.

Funny, that. I wonder what they realized...

P.S. -- Notice that in Philadelphia racial riots have broken out, after police shot a man who was coming at them with a "peaceful protest" knife. And again, the cries are all "racism" and "police brutality."

[FlashDangerpants]

But I do notice that everyone's dropped the "racism" explanation.

Funny, that. I wonder what they realized...

They realised that you will explain away each event individually, while the whole point of systemic racism is that's evident more from the patterns within the data rather than the individual actions (the simple statistical fact of excess danger faced by black men that white men don't face when encountering the police), and so that conversation isn't worth having with you.