Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion

[Mike Sixel]

 

C'mon.

 

No one is justifying it, but those sorts of questions are worth asking.  How do we have cops pursue fugitives if not, basically, harassing people to varying degrees.  Sometimes that's by netting informants, sometimes by random stops, or probably a host of other strategies I'm not aware of.   They also might inform us of the cop's mindset, which could also be valuable in revising police policy.

 

Was this cop's reasoning pretty strained?  Seems that way, but I don't think there is an easy answer to this question.  Those answers get even harder to find if you can't at least entertain an honest question in an honest way.

 

In talking to some of my friends, yes, 100% these other issues are brought up to justify the cop shooting him. 

[Craig Arko]

If there is probable cause, I expect to have my old white butt pulled over.

 

However, I also reasonably expect to survive the encounter.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In talking to some of my friends, yes, 100% these other issues are brought up to justify the cop shooting him. 

 

Well, if those comments aren't happening here....don't you think you're, perhaps, unfairly characterizing posters here?  I mean, I know what your average Hannity viewer is doing...but if it's not happening here then it isn't fair to bring up.

 

And, yes, I do expect to be pulled over for a tail light.  I have twice in fact (thanks to driving junker cars as a pup), but I also didn't expect to get shot.  Nor did I have any such fear of it.  That's something I know many black men and women have different experiences of.

[Mike Sixel]

I actually asked what the point of some the comments was, but perhaps I also judged them.....it's a bit hard not to right now. My bad.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I actually asked what the point of some the comments was, but perhaps I also judged them.....it's a bit hard not to right now. My bad.

 

It's understandable.  This thing is really, really layered and it can be hard to genuinely want to fix things without (sometimes) overstating things.  Or missing part of it that deserves a look.  

 

I can't remember who it was on CNN during hte Dallas thing but he made the point that true leadership, that could look at the concerns of both sides, was the only way to fix this.  He was exactly right, but I fear how many people can actually be that in today's world of tightly policed group think.  (No pun intended)

[diehardtwinsfan]

My sister is a police officer, so I get to see and hear both sides of this on a constant basis.  We've had that argument over the tail light, because yes, I believe the 4th amendment exists for reason, and tail light is just as much of a violation as Snowden or the Patriot Act.  At the end of the day, we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and the tail light is nothing but a selectively enforced way to look for a reason for probable cause.  That type of stuff should stop. 

 

On the other hand, police do need some leeway.  They are asked to make a lot of gut calls, and these are the types of situations that can put their life in danger.  My sister has been there, and so have many of her peers.  There are very real threats to their lives, and I think that to an extent there needs to be grace given where it often isn't.  The other side of that though is the few that demand the respect that they refuse to earn.  There's definitely a lack of professionalism in a lot of police forces which result in retaliation both among peers as well as to civilians, and it is this type of unprofessional behavior that desperately needs to be rooted out by a government that is completely incapable of doing so.  What's even more disheartening about this is that from what I can best tell, Dallas was a good example of management actually having some success in that endeavor.  Not that I'd wish it on anyone, but the killer picked the group that from my birds eye view seemed to be doing a better job at doing the right thing than so many others. 

 

That said, what really irks me about all of this is a much bigger us vs. them problem that people refuse to address.  Black lives matter, I get that.  So do white lives, Hispanic lives, men's lives, women's lives, and quite frankly all lives.  The answer is working together as Americans or whatever else unites us and not continuing to segregate by choice.  The answer to this senseless violence isn't more laws such as hate crimes, gun control, etc.  It's the need to address our own depravity and figure out why it is that in the last decade we've seen a massive change in what constitutes the fundamental respect for human life, and it needs to happen throughout the entire country.  This us vs. them thing only inflames that.  It demonizes the other side and refuses to look at why it is things are as they are.  You aren't going to find that in laws that only serve to upset a large portion of the country.  That is what continues to divide.    You can only get so much of that by installing a more professional police force, and you won't see anything about that in a society where poverty is an entrapping force that snares more and more each year.  This nation has a severed artery and we keep putting band aids on it.

[PseudoSABR]

Good stuff here on Black lives matter wearing law professor https://imgur.com/a/YkDVQ

[PseudoSABR]

 

For starters, drivers licenses can be years old. So using outdated photos to eliminate possible suspects for a crime committed 4 days ago seems like a great way to let the perp fall through your fingers. I know that's no great loss in your mind, but that's more of a legal debate. Today the police are still charged with pursuing criminals to the fullest extent the law allows. And a broken tail light is an offense they can legally stop you for (I should know, its happened to me).

What do you mean "2) the person is not actually the suspect and he registered the car under his name, and his driver's license can be compared to the suspect's, and lack of identification can be confirmed. (And no engagement is necessary.)"
Do you think the police already know the IDs of the perps?

And I don't presume Castile was the perp. I do think its impossible to 100% rule him out, based on the information we're aware of, and stopping him seemed justified, because like a lot of people, I want the police pursuing armed criminals.

At some point you have to assess how much you want the "police pursuing armed criminals."   Does Castile's look-like-ness constitute probable cause for a stop, probably not, hence the need for the "broken tail-light" rationale.    At what point must person NOT LOOK LIKE the suspect for the police behavior to be unreasonable?   If we value the lives of innocents more than we value seeking to punish those who MAY have committed crimes; well, this officers behavior is inappropriate.  

 

On Driver's licenses, etc.

The second point is that Castille is NOT the perp and looking at his Driver's License may have provided enough information to rule him out as a suspect.   Again we are looking for disengagement.  Not Justification for the cop's actions.  (The problem is not that the individual cop messed up but that the rules of engagement allow for latent racism and assumptions to guide such engagement).  

 

--

 

In any case, no matter how much Castille may have looked like this suspect; the officer's actions are unreasonable (whether they are predicated on bad procedure or individual negligence) and the result is unacceptable.   The notion that somehow had Castille really been the suspect his death would have been more justified ENTIRELY MISSES the problem of how police over-use force.

[Craig Arko]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[formerly33]

Before I say anything else, thanks for the thoughtful post. You're one of many examples of someone who either works in the police force or is related to someone who does who actually admits police brutality is a thing, unlike the bandwagon fans who act like they're without fault. My Facebook feed (mostly conservative homers) is so loaded with ridiculous posts/memes that I sometimes forget these people exist. So thanks.

 

However,

 

Black lives matter, I get that.  So do white lives, Hispanic lives, men's lives, women's lives, and quite frankly all lives.

 

 

[twinsnorth49]

The presumption of innocence is one of the highest principles the Courts are held to. The same principle applies to the police and in this instance they failed.

 

Shoot first and ask questions later died a long time ago, there is simply no justification for a man being dead in this situation.

[Craig Arko]

The presumption of innocence is one of the highest principles the Courts are held to. The same principle applies to the police and in this instance they failed.

Shoot first and ask questions later died a long time ago, there is simply no justification for a man being dead in this situation.

At least in civilized nations.

[Craig Arko]

Official collection of related statistics. I predict as with all statistics, they can be used to support pretty much any desired hypothesis.

 

This is why experiments are required and not just collection of data.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=82

[ashbury]

Good stuff here on Black lives matter wearing law professor https://imgur.com/a/YkDVQ

I don't even want to go to law school, but I am tempted to look into whether there are any open seats in one of this teacher's classrooms.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Good stuff here on Black lives matter wearing law professor https://imgur.com/a/YkDVQ

 

I wish that first premise was understood, because it's rapidly becoming a terrible problem at colleges.  But kudos to this guy for this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The presumption of innocence is one of the highest principles the Courts are held to. The same principle applies to the police and in this instance they failed.

Shoot first and ask questions later died a long time ago, there is simply no justification for a man being dead in this situation.

 

Is it totally impossible that the shooting isn't justified?  Are we ruling out even the small chance that Castillo WAS drawing on the officer?  I ask, because your second point somewhat contradicts your first.  Shouldn't we wait a bit before making that declaration?

 

We can talk about it being tragic, even about it being unlikely to have gone down in a way that justifies the officer's actions, but to rule it out altogether seems like a willfully dismissing the presumption of innocence.  I'll ask again, just as Castillo deserved the presumption, shouldn't this officer get it as well? 

 

Also, this is an interesting study.   I don't draw any conclusions from it beyond the fact that a deeper, more expansive study might be helpful in correcting police-work.

[biggentleben]

i do find the fact that it was Dallas unfortunate. I've been extremely heartened not just by the response of the police chief in Dallas, but also by the Dallas community to him, which tells me that the legwork had already been done to improve relations in the community as previously mentioned (some have said that the ground made up in the relations between Latinos and police in Dallas is an example in all the US of how a racial group and law enforcement can come together to openly and honestly address concerns and productive ways to help one another overcome them). I loved that the youth that proposed the weekend "flowers for a cop" was a youth that has actively marched in black lives matter protests. I also was very pleased to hear that the Dallas streets in the aftermaths have been united - black, white, Latin, Asian, whatever - to find ways to be open, with groups meeting in the streets to talk openly with officers about their hurt about the incident.

 

While Dallas sports is typically the cesspool of sports, perhaps all of America should be watching Dallas right now...and learning much.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Is it totally impossible that the shooting isn't justified?  Are we ruling out even the small chance that Castillo WAS drawing on the officer?  I ask, because your second point somewhat contradicts your first.  Shouldn't we wait a bit before making that declaration?

 

We can talk about it being tragic, even about it being unlikely to have gone down in a way that justifies the officer's actions, but to rule it out altogether seems like a willfully dismissing the presumption of innocence.  I'll ask again, just as Castillo deserved the presumption, shouldn't this officer get it as well? 

 

Also, this is an interesting study.   I don't draw any conclusions from it beyond the fact that a deeper, more expansive study might be helpful in correcting police-work.

Yes, that's a fair standard, we should wait. That doesn't change the fact that nobody should be dead though.

[TheLeviathan]

Yes, that's a fair standard, we should wait. That doesn't change the fact that nobody should be dead though.

On that, I totally agree.

[PseudoSABR]

Four off-duty Minneapolis police officers who were working security for Saturday's Lynx game elected to leave their job at Target Center over the players' stance.

"I commend them for it," Lt. Bob Kroll, president of the Minneapolis Police Federation said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

[...]

The black warmup shirts worn said "Change starts with us -- Justice & Accountability" on the front, and the back featured the phrase "Black Lives Matter" and the names of Sterling and Castile, who was killed by a suburban St. Paul police officer during a traffic stop.

Link

 

More from here.

Also on the back of the shirt is the Dallas police shield above the phrase "Black Lives Matter."

 

[biggentleben]

 

Link

 

And that's where things just get worse, and have been getting worse in the Twin Cities, sadly.

 

Holy crap was there an opportunity to have an incredibly publicized open dialogue with a group of fairly popular group who are speaking out. Join the press conference with Moore and Whalen and the other players and have an open dialogue about efforts taken in Minneapolis and open dialogue on what could be done better.

 

Instead, let's take our ball and go home...

[TheLeviathan]

Are those of you lobbing shade on the officers here also going to lob some the way of protesters on highways?  

 

Just curious because most of the people on this thread are operating under their own form of tribalism, but more of ideology.  It saddens me because all this talk of "open dialogue" is nonsense unless we come to the table in a fair, understanding, honest, and humble way.  I like what Maya Moore said, she seems to get it.  These officers, not so much.  Any protester blocking a highway, not so much.  And too many around the world who are stuck in their ideological camps aren't getting it either.

 

[TheLeviathan]

Matt Welch, sadly, probably has this right.

 

Open dialogue doesn't work if no one is listening.

[PseudoSABR]

Are those of you lobbing shade on the officers here also going to lob some the way of protesters on highways?  

 

Just curious because most of the people on this thread are operating under their own form of tribalism, but more of ideology.  It saddens me because all this talk of "open dialogue" is nonsense unless we come to the table in a fair, understanding, honest, and humble way.  I like what Maya Moore said, she seems to get it.  These officers, not so much.  Any protester blocking a highway, not so much.  And too many around the world who are stuck in their ideological camps aren't getting it either.

Right, Levi.  

 

I'm not going to pretend not to believe what I believe, or be from where I'm from, but I'm so there at the table, willing to listen, willing to be wrong, but in the face of defiance and obstinacy, it's very difficult to keep one's composure, which, in turn, makes it difficult to keep coming back to the table.   I don't say this to chide anyone, but rather to implore a general of willingness to not ask 'why should I help out, why should I give up what I believe' but rather ask, 'what can I do to help fix the issue?', whether if it's their "place" to do so or not.   

People worry too much about blame, and who's really at fall, and who should carry the burden of making things better--when in reality, the problem is systemic, has no source, exists only in a latent state, shaping policy, discretion, and fear, never emerging as that hateful beast we call racism.  It does not take racists to build a society where cops kill black people, it only takes do-nothings, and not-my-problems. 

[biggentleben]

 

Are those of you lobbing shade on the officers here also going to lob some the way of protesters on highways?  

 

Just curious because most of the people on this thread are operating under their own form of tribalism, but more of ideology.  It saddens me because all this talk of "open dialogue" is nonsense unless we come to the table in a fair, understanding, honest, and humble way.  I like what Maya Moore said, she seems to get it.  These officers, not so much.  Any protester blocking a highway, not so much.  And too many around the world who are stuck in their ideological camps aren't getting it either.

 

No, I don't agree with blocking a highway. When you protest in front of a major political building and that protest affects the traffic on that one street, well, I guess I can forgive that as taking action and a pseudo-expected thing as part of our freedom of peaceful assembly near a political building like a city hall or capital building or such. A highway, however, is a different ballgame.

 

I think there's a definite attempt to make a bigger spectacle and be more demonstrative in actions on each side, but sadly, that's how we got where we are in Washington.

[biggentleben]

 

Open dialogue doesn't work if no one is listening.

 

And that's where what Dallas has done takes an even more impressive place, frankly. Many groups have come humbly to the table, willing to put their agenda on the table and work together in compromise to find ways for everyone to feel as their concerns and welfare is being understood and appreciated.

[TheLeviathan]

 

People worry too much about blame, and who's really at fall, and who should carry the burden of making things better--when in reality, the problem is systemic, has no source, exists only in a latent state, shaping policy, discretion, and fear, never emerging as that hateful beast we call racism.  It does not take racists to build a society where cops kill black people, it only takes do-nothings, and not-my-problems. 

 

I don't disagree, but your link and ben's response came off as blaming and I see a lot of that from one ideological tribe but very little attempt to balance that.  (I should clarify, see it here in this thread.  Nationally there is plenty hurling around from both sides.  I'm more than tired of seeing stupid "blue lives matters, delete me if you disagree" BS on my facebook)

 

Personally, I take one's true willingness to come to the table from their ability to be consistent, fair, and willing to call out their own.  If it's always hammering in one direction, I start to seriously question that willingness.

[Bark's Lounge]

I know this is not the political thread, but I have gained a lot of knowledge from these kinds of threads. I always enjoy a good old fashioned idealogical showdown between Levi and Pseudo (although you 2 are not really that far apart in my opinion). Ben, Brock, Chi-Town, Mike S. and so many more add a lot to these conversations.

 

These are weird times, and they can be amped up at moments, but I would have a hard time thinking there is a better place to have these conversations.

 

I just wanted to acknowledge this and say thank you.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't disagree, but your link and ben's response came off as blaming and I see a lot of that from one ideological tribe but very little attempt to balance that.  

 

Personally, I take one's true willingness to come to the table from their ability to be consistent, fair, and willing to call out their own.  If it's always hammering in one direction, I start to seriously question that willingness.

Balance might be overvalued thanks to the Fox News channel.  I try to be fair.  I try not to editorialize when presenting articles and others' ideas.  I tend to edit/fix my posts when I notice errors, oversights, biases, or when they're brought to my attention.  And yet, still, I feel the need to hammer in one direction.  That's not because of ideology, that's because of results, a result of that unwillingness to come to the table.  

 

Here, one group is a race who is composed of people who did not choose to be part of that group, on the other side, are public officers who are paid from tax revenue, which inevitably includes the former group.  An error in balance is to suggest that each group has equal complaint or as much work to do to change the happenstance.  It seems to me, by duty of public office, just one group is obligated to supply the most give....yet, we should some how leave blameless those who abdicate their second-job's duty because of some perceived offense?  Give me a break. 

 

Why is the phenomenon of police brutality emerging in the twenty-teens? Because the power of the police is embedded, it's defenders from blame were infinite and powerful, and the law of land was written and construed to favor that authority in nearly all circumstances, with near immunity.  Forgive me, and others, if we tend to be a bit unbalanced in our caricature of the phenomenon.  Balance, so-called, has been part of the problem.  

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 An error in balance is to suggest that each group has equal complaint or as much work to do to change the happenstance.  It seems to me, by duty of public office, is obligated to supply the most give....yet, we should some how leave blameless those who abdicate their second-job's duty because of some perceived offense?  Give me a break. 

 

Who said that?  I lobbed blame at them.  I just didn't post that without also acknowledging their are a lot of bad actors on the other side either.  

 

Balance and honesty are necessary to a solution, not part of the problem.  All you're advocating with that message is ideological tribalism and that will always (always!) fail.  

 

Afterall, there is an inherent contradiction in what you want: you want the police to give but you want to grant them no measure in return.  Not even the measure of listening.  And, hell, you rightly want them to be honest and call out their own but you can't even manage to do that yourself when the stakes are much, much lower.  I find that really hard to side with.