18 yr old shoots at off-duty St. Louis cop, gets killed

[Mavorpen]

Though admittedly, sometimes I wish I could pull some people over when they're doing dangerous shit because they know a cop isn't around.

There is such thing as civilian arrest, although I don't think this has ever been used to pull cars over. If you can prove the legitimacy of the civilian arrest in a court of law, this will form a defense against stuff like false imprisonment on your part, and they will most probably be held liable for any damages/injuries they cause if and when they attempt to escape you, and in many cases, this standard may not even be needed. For example, if someone is stopped in a car, you can always place yourself in front or on top of the car. If they do something stupid like try to run you over they'll most probably be held liable regardless of whether or not you prove they were doing or had just done a crime.

I'll be honest, I have no idea how to respond to this.

[Jamzmania]

That doesn't make it any less true.

Yeah, actually it does. It's in no way proof that this position is uncommon. Dutta is explaining to people why they should have more sympathy for cops and manages to unmask just how fucked up a number of cops see the world. That he, as a professor of law enforcement, feels comfortable in openly admitting all of this shows just how widespread and accepted the mentality is among his peers. The statement that his editorial is his own opinion is going to go on there regardless of what he says and how well it lines up with official policy. He could be plagiarizing the public relations manual and they'd still put the disclaimer on, ergo it has no bearing towards what you are claiming.

It's also no proof that it is a common belief. Just because one man posts his thoughts and opinions on the internet (with a disclaimer saying that he doesn't represent all cops) does not in any way prove it represents a common belief.

[Laerod]

Uh, that's a liability and PR clause.

No. It means that his views are his own and are not representative of the LAPD, or all American police officers as you were stating.

I mean that's such an absolute statement. Hundreds of thousands of police in America, and you're saying they act like this because one person acts like this.

One? You're joking, right? I've seen that attitude in action all over the place. Dutta has just done us the favor of spelling it out.

Failure to investigate a cover up is not.

Now you're implying this off-duty cop had the necessary resources, initiative and forethought to single-handedly (or perhaps helped by other off duty cop friends?) plant a gun and empty cases, possibly also fire "fake shots" for bullets to later come up as if the alleged assailant had fired "their" weapon, and also possibly plant fake fingerprints on the planted gun, all the while avoiding contamination with his own fingerprints, and all under the eyes and ears of by-passers. Pretty far-fetched, don't you think?

You're claiming that he wouldn't benefit from the blue code of silence. This is wrong. There is a culture of not fucking over your fellow cops even when they absolutely deserve it, and a cover up by this guy would be a hypothetical example of an act where he'd benefit from it. Keeping silent and letting things slide creates an environment where planting evidence becomes possible. If you know that the people investigating your shooting are on your side they encourage you to push the limits on that.

I'm not saying he has done anything of the sort, but given the track record of cops in the past, the rampant abuse of power that goes on, and the tendency of cops to get very defensive when their own get accused, it is unfortunately not something that can be ruled out.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

There is such thing as civilian arrest, although I don't think this has ever been used to pull cars over. If you can prove the legitimacy of the civilian arrest in a court of law, this will form a defense against stuff like false imprisonment on your part, and they will most probably be held liable for any damages/injuries they cause if and when they attempt to escape you, and in many cases, this standard may not even be needed. For example, if someone is stopped in a car, you can always place yourself in front or on top of the car. If they do something stupid like try to run you over they'll most probably be held liable regardless of whether or not you prove they were doing or had just done a crime.

I'll be honest, I have no idea how to respond to this.

[Laerod]

Yeah, actually it does. It's in no way proof that this position is uncommon. Dutta is explaining to people why they should have more sympathy for cops and manages to unmask just how fucked up a number of cops see the world. That he, as a professor of law enforcement, feels comfortable in openly admitting all of this shows just how widespread and accepted the mentality is among his peers. The statement that his editorial is his own opinion is going to go on there regardless of what he says and how well it lines up with official policy. He could be plagiarizing the public relations manual and they'd still put the disclaimer on, ergo it has no bearing towards what you are claiming.

It's also no proof that it is a common belief. Just because one man posts his thoughts and opinions on the internet (with a disclaimer saying that he doesn't represent all cops) does not in any way prove it represents a common belief.

I'm not the one claiming it was proof of anything. The fact that his explanation is a really decent one for behavior that I've personally seen cops exhibit and that shows up all over the place in videos where cops abuse their powers is the proof that it's a common belief.

[Fanosolia]

You know if there's such a mistrust for police in america, why not just put camera's on the police uniform to be warn at all times? Easy way to verify this sort of thing. Harder to play the race card there then.

I know some country has done it.

Cause then people will complain that the government is watching what they do and that the cameras will violate their right to privacy. Example people bitched about red light cameras claiming they violated their rights to privacy if I remember correctly the same will happen here

That a fair thing to complain about, though if that is the case it's not on the same level as say cameras at every public street. My counter argument is that the camera still has to follow police protocol. So it isn't getting into your house without a warrant and the tape (or whatever) is only used for evidence in cases like this one.

[San-Silvacian]

If its common belief that all cops are bad people who abuse their power.

Why can't it be common belief that all black people are somehow involved with crime?

[Mavorpen]

If its common belief that all cops are bad people who abuse their power.

Why can't it be common belief that all black people are somehow involved with crime?

It can. I'm not sure why you believe it can't be. It's not like we can read the mind of every person in the country and change their thoughts.

[Laerod]

If its common belief that all cops are bad people who abuse their power.

Why can't it be common belief that all black people are somehow involved with crime?

Ignoring the hyperbolic "all" argument for a moment, you're comparing apples to oranges. Black people are grouped along terms of ethnicity and appearance while cops are a category of people employed in a certain occupation. Specifically, an occupation that has been entrusted with lethal force and the authority to use it. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone, but it is utterly defensible to hold cops to a much higher standard than your average citizen, even if that citizen's skin has a higher melanin content than that of others.

[Czeckolutania]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

[New Chalcedon]

You really trust the police version of the story?
Without any actual evidence shown?
Despite other witnesses saying otherwise?

Hmmmmmmm.

The story is very fresh and the PD has barely any reason to cover up for an off-duty cop.

Look up the psychology of the thin blue line sometime. The short version: Cops stick together. Period. Including perjuring themselves on the stand if needs be - you think lying to a nosy reporter would bother most cops?

Witnesses? What witnesses? The ones who said that the kid was unarmed were his family/relatives, and frankly, what could you expect?

True. Bias operates both ways in this case.

If its common belief that all cops are bad people who abuse their power.

Why can't it be common belief that all black people are somehow involved with crime?

You do not choose to be black. You choose to be a cop, and that choice implies a certain, fairly grubby, mentality.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

If a cop defending himself turns this into another nationwide martyr protest I'm fucking moving to Germany.

[New Chalcedon]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

As has been pointed out, we only have the cop's word that the dead person was armed.

Which is one more reason to require all on-duty cops to wear surveillance gear. It wouldn't have averted this specific case, no - but damn, it'd help cut back the incidences of casual police brutality, racially-motivated abuse of power and other such unsavoury activities.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

If a cop defending himself turns this into another nationwide martyr protest I'm fucking moving to Germany.

Why would they want you.

[Mizrad]

I would just like to say that if the kid had landed one of his shots and killed the cop nobody would have heard about this. Just sayin'.

[Laerod]

If a cop defending himself turns this into another nationwide martyr protest I'm fucking moving to Germany.

Hilarious.

[Mavorpen]

If a cop defending himself turns this into another nationwide martyr protest I'm fucking moving to Germany.

Hilarious.

Yes, but there's less dark people.

[San-Silvacian]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

Have you every tried to fire while on the move?

It sounds like you haven't at all.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I would just like to say that if the kid had landed one of his shots and killed the cop nobody would have heard about this. Just sayin'.

lol

[Laerod]

Hilarious.

Yes, but there's less dark people.

They did imply they were fleeing protests against the police.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, but there's less dark people.

They did imply they were fleeing protests against the police.

I think that was more than an implication, honestly.

[Mizrad]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

As has been pointed out, we only have the cop's word that the dead person was armed.

Which is one more reason to require all on-duty cops to wear surveillance gear. It wouldn't have averted this specific case, no - but damn, it'd help cut back the incidences of casual police brutality, racially-motivated abuse of power and other such unsavoury activities.

He wasn't on duty so it wouldn't have mattered.

EDIT: Quoted the wrong post, I realize you already adressed that but still you get my point.

[Czeckolutania]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

Have you every tried to fire while on the move?

It sounds like you haven't at all.

No, I stopped quickly aimed at my target, led the appropriate distance, and fired. Hit first shot. Firing on the move if you don't have to is impractical and idiotic.

[Mizrad]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

Funny because the cop was off duty. It doesn't matter whether or not he was doing what a cop should do because at that moment he was employed as a private security officer, not a police officer. There is a HUGE difference.

[Laerod]

I think we're all overlooking something here, right up until the man fired, he did nothing that would warrant the police investigating him. Possession of a firearm in and of itself is not enough for an officer to stop a person. Running is also not a violation of the law... I fail to see the reasoning behind chasing the man. There was obvious racial profiling involved that started the exchange of bullets, but once the exchange started the police officer was in the right in returning fire... But damn if it takes 17 rounds to stop your target, you might want to hit the range more often.

Funny because the cop was off duty. It doesn't matter whether or not he was doing what a cop should do because at that moment he was employed as a private security officer, not a police officer. There is a HUGE difference.

Cops are technically never off duty. Much like a first responder, they're expected to intervene if the need arises even when off the clock.