> We live in a society where anywhere and everyone can have a gun at any time, and police are responding with fear in dangerous ways.
We have always lived in a society with lots of guns. This level of police fear is totally unwarranted (yes, I am well aware of the Dallas shootings, but they happened recently, while the police have been shooting willy-nilly for years). I blame the militarization of police, and indirectly the war in Iraq (from where a lot of these cops come from, having served a tour or two).
Both sides need to calm the fuck down. And aggressive, pumped cops who draw their weapons at the first chance need to be put out uniform.
Added later: I'd like to add that policing has not been this safe in decades. Last year 123 officers were killed on duty (which includes all deaths, including accidents, falls, etc.). The last time this few were killed (excluding last couple of years) is in 1959: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.htm...
>We have always lived in a society with lots of guns.
No we didn't (lot's of guns maybe -- the police using them like this, no).
In the times of the "Old West" maybe, but from what I've read and watched, police didn't behave that way up until after the 50s and 60s, this "Rambo/Dirty Harry" shit started sometime in the late 70s-80s, along with "Zero Tolerance" and other stupid ideas...
And of course sending something like a SWAT team for BS micro-offences like we read today was unheard of.
>Both sides need to calm the fuck down.
Both the police and the innocent getting shot or targeted?
Like joezydeco said & Dirk Praet on Schneier's blog, the "militarization" of police here is worse than it seems because our police are more aggressive than soldiers on battlefields. Those among my friends and family all griped about the rules of engagement they follow. Like their should be with policing, there's a series of events and escalations that can happen to reduce odds they shoot wrong person or just cause a huge scene.
Dirk said in a debate that our situation would improve a lot if U.S. police encountering U.S. citizens would exercise at least as much caution as U.S. troops do on foreign ones. What an observation.
Cops need to have their use-of-force rules be softened to exactly the same as what is required of a non-police lawful carrier, unless they are engaging someone who's known to be hostile (serving a warrant, for instance).
The new standard: you only draw if there is an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. If you use "his hand was too close to his waist" as an excuse to draw on someone, or you draw before seeing them actually pose a threat, you go to prison for a very long time.
While we're at it, ban police unions, and don't require a conviction to have a bad cop removed from their job. Better safe than sorry.
I agree with the general sentiment, but cases like Trayvon Martin tells that a non-police US citizen can apparently chase a person down for not much more than "he doesn't look like he belong in this street", start an altercation, shoot and kill, and claim self-defense.
If drawing a gun because you think you're threatened is a US citizen's right, then it will remain a US police officer's right. You can have both, or you can have none.
But here's the thing: imminent threat is exactly what they are allowed to react against now.
I think the issue isn't actual threat, it's perceived threat. And, cops perceive a lot of things as threatening enough to endanger your life upon.
But we know this. How to fix it? I don't think better training is the answer. I don't think cops will allow cams to work. I think incentives need to change.
Here's a fix: give a 40% (or whatever) pay bump to any officer that chooses to work without his gun.
We'll probably start seeing exactly where guns are required vs where they are an emotional crutch.
It's hard enough to find good people (note the qualification) willing to be police already. Add more restrictions and penalties and you'll soon find that nobody will be willing to take the job.
It's absolutely insane how quick and willing the police are to use lethal force. It's a systemic problem and an ongoing national tragedy. To fix it we need cameras on every single officer and a complete institutional overhaul where basic procedures are reworked and violations are dealt with aggressively. Too many officers currently see zero repercussions for this type of illegal behavior, and it tears apart the social fabric of our communities.
The police treat their personal safety as the top priority, and have been doing so for some time. As a result, they are totally willing to hurt or kill others in order to prevent themselves being threatened.
My view is that their job is to protect non-police, not the 'boys in blue'. As such, they should be willing to put themselves at risk in order to 'serve and protect' the public, including suspects. Most police units should change their motto to reflect their current priorities:
"to serve and protect police".
To fix it we need cameras on every single officer and a complete institutional overhaul where basic procedures are reworked and violations are dealt with aggressively
Policing does seem like it should be a 1 or 2-strike you're out kind of a job, not a "we'll get multiple reports about misbehavior and do nothing until someone dies" kind of a job.
It sounds like this officer was out of line. However it made me think that maybe this type of stop is a trade off you have to make for the 2nd amendment. A stop where a cop is overly cautious and ready to use his weapon at a moments notice because the other person could have a weapon too. Police here don't carry guns and I am not worried if they try to stop me. In America I would be very worried if I was going to be stopped and I would be extremely cautious and deliberate in my movements whereas at home I wouldn't think about moving slowly and explaining every action I was taking.
Edit: To be 100% clear I am commenting generally, not on this specific incident which, from what we know, seems out of line.
As someone who lives in Arizona I find the officer's behavior really unusually extreme. Concealed carrying people and permit holders get pulled over all the time and it's usually not a big deal.
Rather, this seems to be an example of self-priming for some kind of worst case scenario, which I think is entirely unrelated to 2nd amendment. It's the assumption that, since something's awry, the worst case must be the immediate case, or even some sort of echo of PTSD and war mentality, or misguided ideas along the lines that keeping himself absolutely "safe" is somehow the same as keeping everyone else "safe."
I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. Knocking on the rear-window with a pistol (and pointing it at a little girl!) isn't taking a reasonable precaution against potential aggression, it's plain provocation.
This word "cautious" is getting thrown around in this discussion. What was described in the article was insane aggression, not caution. Caution means taking care to AVOID danger and mistakes, not escalating the situation in order to assure it. A cautious person does not point a gun at a child or threaten to murder someone who's non-threatening.
> However it made me think that maybe this type of stop is a trade off you have to make for the 2nd amendment.
Nonsense — we had a 2nd Amendment and far more prevalent arms ownership in the 19th century, with less police violence.
Being a police officer really isn't very dangerous. What we need are the police to realise that the vast majority of the people they encounter aren't a danger to them.
I'm not sure it's wise to threaten to sue Arizona law enforcement while still located in Arizona. Unlike in the incident TFA described, it's not likely now that they'll kill him, because it's clear that such an outcome would come under severe scrutiny. However, they're now quite motivated to engineer some sort of legal threat, the charges for which a prosecutor could waive in return for dropping a lawsuit. Maybe someone could assault him, with enough Arizona-friendly witnesses around to "establish" that Walton started it. Maybe he could get into a wreck, for which he could be blamed by Arizona investigators. Those are some lonesome highways in northern Arizona.
This is inexcusable. If it's impractical to prosecute police officers who behave like this because of the cozy relationship between the district attorney and police department, then at the very least the cops should be immediately and permanently fired.
It is unacceptable for police officers to endanger and terrorize the public like this.
Can insurance help solve this problem? As in, police depts. require each cop to get some liability coverage. When incidents like this lead to a payout on the cop's behalf, their premium goes up. Eventually it's too high for them to afford so they must leave the job. If it's feasible then, regardless of how they feel about BLM, convince taxpaying citizens to get behind this scheme because their tax dollars shouldn't be going to settle these well-justified lawsuits.
i'm not white, and i also like sports cars, which means i'm pulled over a lot.
i think a lot of white people aren't actually familiar with the 'protocol' because they've never really had to think about it. but here it is, for those of you who don't know it:
when you get signaled to pull over:
1. turn your blinker or hazards on, and start to pull over
2. pull over in a safe spot away from traffic, but without going too far away from the main road. oftentimes the officer will get on the loudspeaker and direct you where to pull over.
3. while you're stopping, ROLL YOUR WINDOWS DOWN (this is apparently what he forgot to do)
4. once stopped, turn your engine off and put the parking brake on
5. put your hands at 10 and 2, ON THE WHEEL
6. look into the rear or side mirror so they can see your eyes are on them and not something else.
i guess it's just getting to the point where even white people have to do these things. probably because of the meth / heroin epidemic.
I stick both hand out of the window with fingers spread out. I have had odd reactions, and most officers actually think I am an officer myself or I have family that is LEO (I am not and I don't, but I have practiced as a criminal defense lawyer, which I don't acknowledge either). Probably the oddest reaction was one officer saying I must really not want to get shot while laughing at me.
This is different from the advice we got during traffic school from an off-duty CHP officer.
His suggested steps:
1. Turn on the inside cabin light (the overhead light).
2. Pull over.
3. Turn off your engine, but leave the key turned to Accessories so you can
roll down the windows later.
(But wait until commanded to do so.)
4. Put your hands on the top of the steering wheel.
5. Refrain from:
a. Rolling down any windows.
b. Reaching for the glove compartment.
c. Reaching for your wallet.
d. Opening the car door.
6. Await further instructions from the officer, follow lawful orders.
I personally would not roll the windows all the way down, just low enough to hand them ID and to hear and be heard clearly, and I would make sure the doors are locked. The Sandra Bland footage taught me this. https://youtu.be/jpSEemvwOn4?t=2m14s
Additionally, in my experience if you have an older car without keyless ignition, taking the keys out of the ignition and putting them on the dashboard will help as well.
Number 5 is one of the most important things!
6. Can be difficult especially at night when they're shining the spotlight in specifically to blind you.
Also don't forget to ask permission before reaching anywhere.
The cop was over reacting, no question about it. However it sounds like the issue stemmed from a computer system that did not make it clear that it was a plate that was missing and not the car. I wonder what the actual screen looked like that the officer misread. He was driving, reading and typing in a license plate, and reading the computer readout. Seems like a color coding system or some kind of better UI could have prevented him from mis-interpreting that the car was stolen. It sounds stupid to say that a UI fix could prevent this kind of violence but I wonder if it could have and how often this type of thing happens.
Proper communication is the first line of defense against conflict.
A harrowing story. I especially appreciate his explicit recognition of Black Lives Matter. Privilege is extremely hard to notice when you're in the middle of it. But when you get up close to its edges, it can be much easier to see.
His statement "[if] I was black, or young, or long-haired, or tattooed, or didn't speak English - I believe he might have pulled the trigger" was entirely speculation.
He, and you, are projecting your opinions on this situation without relevant evidence.
This is truly frightening. A tiny (additional) mistake by anyone would have cost lives.
There will be many people defending the right to bear arms. But seeing this from another country and cultural background just makes you shake your head in disbelief. If police officers think they have to be that overly aggressive and cautious because of the general prevalence of guns, then maybe it would be a good thing to reduce it.
I understand though that once there are so many guns out there it is hard to reduce the number.
EDIT: There are more aspects to this, of course. Including better training for police officers etc.
Look, this sucks, but if a cop is pulling over a car that's showing up in their onboard computer as stolen, it's going to be treated as a felony traffic stop, with weapons drawn.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I've never held a gun), but from my gun-owning friends, the first words I've generally heard regarding guns are "Don't point the working end at anything you don't intend to put a hole in".
Is this criminalized? If not, can we lobby for it?
So, while we're on the subject of major tech players who had a negative interaction with the police and posted about it publically, and now that it's been a little over half a year, did we ever find out what the full story was with Ian Murdock's death?
If we removed guns from non-federal officers and made gun violence a federal crime, we could reach a Nash equilibrium state from a game theory perspective. Criminals have no incentive to harm local police. Failure to surrender to a police officer becomes a federal crime.
Horrifying to even imagine that someone has to go through this with their 7 year old sitting right behind them. Now I will be shit scared to rent a car EVER!!
This SERIOUSLY pisses me off! You've never lived until you've had a loaded gun pointed at you and a POS cop yelling lies at you. I hope that officer gets nailed to a cross.
[+] [-] 1024core|9 years ago|reply
We have always lived in a society with lots of guns. This level of police fear is totally unwarranted (yes, I am well aware of the Dallas shootings, but they happened recently, while the police have been shooting willy-nilly for years). I blame the militarization of police, and indirectly the war in Iraq (from where a lot of these cops come from, having served a tour or two).
Both sides need to calm the fuck down. And aggressive, pumped cops who draw their weapons at the first chance need to be put out uniform.
Added later: I'd like to add that policing has not been this safe in decades. Last year 123 officers were killed on duty (which includes all deaths, including accidents, falls, etc.). The last time this few were killed (excluding last couple of years) is in 1959: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.htm...
[+] [-] joezydeco|9 years ago|reply
But, ironically, the military has rules of engagement when it comes to enemy combatants. You take many, many, steps before you open fire.
We gave the cops the military surplus weapons, but not the training on how/when to use them.
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
No we didn't (lot's of guns maybe -- the police using them like this, no).
In the times of the "Old West" maybe, but from what I've read and watched, police didn't behave that way up until after the 50s and 60s, this "Rambo/Dirty Harry" shit started sometime in the late 70s-80s, along with "Zero Tolerance" and other stupid ideas...
And of course sending something like a SWAT team for BS micro-offences like we read today was unheard of.
>Both sides need to calm the fuck down.
Both the police and the innocent getting shot or targeted?
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
Dirk said in a debate that our situation would improve a lot if U.S. police encountering U.S. citizens would exercise at least as much caution as U.S. troops do on foreign ones. What an observation.
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
That doesn't make sense. There were always a lot of military veterans in police forces.
[+] [-] koenigdavidmj|9 years ago|reply
The new standard: you only draw if there is an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. If you use "his hand was too close to his waist" as an excuse to draw on someone, or you draw before seeing them actually pose a threat, you go to prison for a very long time.
While we're at it, ban police unions, and don't require a conviction to have a bad cop removed from their job. Better safe than sorry.
Don't like it? Work in another field.
[+] [-] yongjik|9 years ago|reply
If drawing a gun because you think you're threatened is a US citizen's right, then it will remain a US police officer's right. You can have both, or you can have none.
[+] [-] mildbow|9 years ago|reply
I think the issue isn't actual threat, it's perceived threat. And, cops perceive a lot of things as threatening enough to endanger your life upon.
But we know this. How to fix it? I don't think better training is the answer. I don't think cops will allow cams to work. I think incentives need to change.
Here's a fix: give a 40% (or whatever) pay bump to any officer that chooses to work without his gun.
We'll probably start seeing exactly where guns are required vs where they are an emotional crutch.
[+] [-] GrumpyYoungMan|9 years ago|reply
It's hard enough to find good people (note the qualification) willing to be police already. Add more restrictions and penalties and you'll soon find that nobody will be willing to take the job.
[+] [-] ypeterholmes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickff|9 years ago|reply
My view is that their job is to protect non-police, not the 'boys in blue'. As such, they should be willing to put themselves at risk in order to 'serve and protect' the public, including suspects. Most police units should change their motto to reflect their current priorities: "to serve and protect police".
[+] [-] jseliger|9 years ago|reply
This is almost impossible because of police unions: http://theweek.com/articles/635385/how-police-unions-actuall... or http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/14/police-unions-produce-rule.... Until we get rid of police unions, all of the social media commenting in the world is unlikely to produce real changes.
At one point it looked like the Supreme Court might help: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/29/public_sec..., but that no longer appears true.
[+] [-] Glyptodon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|9 years ago|reply
Edit: To be 100% clear I am commenting generally, not on this specific incident which, from what we know, seems out of line.
[+] [-] Glyptodon|9 years ago|reply
Rather, this seems to be an example of self-priming for some kind of worst case scenario, which I think is entirely unrelated to 2nd amendment. It's the assumption that, since something's awry, the worst case must be the immediate case, or even some sort of echo of PTSD and war mentality, or misguided ideas along the lines that keeping himself absolutely "safe" is somehow the same as keeping everyone else "safe."
[+] [-] theli0nheart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeveb|9 years ago|reply
Nonsense — we had a 2nd Amendment and far more prevalent arms ownership in the 19th century, with less police violence.
Being a police officer really isn't very dangerous. What we need are the police to realise that the vast majority of the people they encounter aren't a danger to them.
[+] [-] ProAm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmcgough|9 years ago|reply
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/3:2013cv0822...
[+] [-] jessaustin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohazi|9 years ago|reply
It is unacceptable for police officers to endanger and terrorize the public like this.
[+] [-] clumsysmurf|9 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-sh...
[+] [-] marcusgarvey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
For cops to have to carry liability coverage, first you'd have to make cops liable and effectively accountable.
And if you did that, you wouldn't need to worry about the insurance aspect of things.
[+] [-] untangle|9 years ago|reply
I'd like to hear the police's side of the story before launching tirades about aggressive, pumped cops.
https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2016/08/12/local-authors-post-abou...
[+] [-] beachstartup|9 years ago|reply
i think a lot of white people aren't actually familiar with the 'protocol' because they've never really had to think about it. but here it is, for those of you who don't know it:
when you get signaled to pull over:
1. turn your blinker or hazards on, and start to pull over 2. pull over in a safe spot away from traffic, but without going too far away from the main road. oftentimes the officer will get on the loudspeaker and direct you where to pull over.
3. while you're stopping, ROLL YOUR WINDOWS DOWN (this is apparently what he forgot to do) 4. once stopped, turn your engine off and put the parking brake on 5. put your hands at 10 and 2, ON THE WHEEL 6. look into the rear or side mirror so they can see your eyes are on them and not something else.
i guess it's just getting to the point where even white people have to do these things. probably because of the meth / heroin epidemic.
[+] [-] will_brown|9 years ago|reply
I stick both hand out of the window with fingers spread out. I have had odd reactions, and most officers actually think I am an officer myself or I have family that is LEO (I am not and I don't, but I have practiced as a criminal defense lawyer, which I don't acknowledge either). Probably the oddest reaction was one officer saying I must really not want to get shot while laughing at me.
[+] [-] aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA|9 years ago|reply
His suggested steps:
[+] [-] marcusgarvey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Noted|9 years ago|reply
Number 5 is one of the most important things!
6. Can be difficult especially at night when they're shining the spotlight in specifically to blind you.
Also don't forget to ask permission before reaching anywhere.
[+] [-] Mickydtron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amckenna|9 years ago|reply
Proper communication is the first line of defense against conflict.
[+] [-] wpietri|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|9 years ago|reply
He, and you, are projecting your opinions on this situation without relevant evidence.
[+] [-] sabertoothed|9 years ago|reply
There will be many people defending the right to bear arms. But seeing this from another country and cultural background just makes you shake your head in disbelief. If police officers think they have to be that overly aggressive and cautious because of the general prevalence of guns, then maybe it would be a good thing to reduce it.
I understand though that once there are so many guns out there it is hard to reduce the number.
EDIT: There are more aspects to this, of course. Including better training for police officers etc.
[+] [-] Gracana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphorm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jowiar|9 years ago|reply
Is this criminalized? If not, can we lobby for it?
[+] [-] Gracana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxfordAndSons|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linguistbreaker|9 years ago|reply
The cops are above the law.
[+] [-] spb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blobbers|9 years ago|reply
Better system?
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codegeek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Unbeliever69|9 years ago|reply