Philosophy Now Forum

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:44 pm 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?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:44 pm 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?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:44 pm 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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:44 pm 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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:39 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:26 pm 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

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:08 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:39 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:26 pm 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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:39 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:26 pm 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).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:34 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:36 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:44 pm You are the only...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:53 pm No longer interested in you. You're just looking to gainsay without thinking. And you're boring.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:34 pm 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.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:53 pm 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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:20 pm 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.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:20 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:53 pm 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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:36 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:34 pm 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

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:32 pm But I do notice that everyone's dropped the "racism" explanation.

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