PseudoSABR

Part of the police mentality that is so problematic is the notion that the Ends justifies the Means -- which you simply keep echoing without even assessing how problematic those Means really were. The notion, which you keep implying, is that these people some how deserve to get busted by law enforcement (and if death happens, well, its probably their fault because they are bad criminals) is EXACTLY the kind of dehumanization that breeds reckless police authority. We need to stop with this barbaric concept that some people are bad and deserve what's coming to them. That's predicated on a judgment without any due process of law, with scant facts, and lots of assumptions, which is a kind of mentality that is shared with bigots and racists. It's not simply not up to you, or the cop to make such a profound and life-affecting judgment.)

It took a while, but they made up the call on the pick off.

Excellent article from a black ex-cop.

I like the idea a lot, but I'm unclear of the standard, as there seems to be a mix of recent production, season production, potential future production, value as a trade asset, and hype. Explaining how you weigh each factor would go along way to putting them in context, and making them meaningful.

Speaking of reform; Baltimore recently overhauled their use of deadly force policy, focusing on the 'sanctity of human life'. In reading about that policy reform, I came across the Peelian principles of policing, which I find very relevant and something to aspire to. The nine principals are: 1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. 2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. 4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

I think there's all kinds of tactics and resources that the police don't avail themselves of that could be useful in such situations. First, the police need to realize that there's no hurry to 'solve' the situation. If a person isn't complying in some way but also isn't presenting an articulable danger, the tactic that preserves life is to freaking wait it out. I imagine if police started investing in non-deadly weaponary, industry would invent/provide all kinds of clever tools and devices to take perpetrators down. Heck, throwing a net over a person, shooting a bean bag at the persons head to knock them out, freaking lasso the guy before needing use a fire arm. We need to take deadly-force out of the police tool box and replace it with alternative tools that better protect citizens, and probably will better protect the police as well.

I think the public policy of 'rooting out crime' is part of the problem that leads to so many unnecessary deaths and confrontations. The notion that because a citizen looks like a suspected criminal somehow provides context for that citizens death is at the outset extremely problematic. The problem is the police make the assumption that the citizen is the suspect (or a criminal), rather than an innocent person, and its that incorrect assumption that leads police to mis-evaluate the risk of harm to themselves. It's these assumptions that short-circuit our legal system, and empower the cop to essentially be judge, jury, and executioner. The mindset of police officers needs to cease to be that the person they are interacting with may be criminal, may be a suspect of another crime or may be a danger to themselves. Such assumptions certainly may help in 'rooting out crime' or compiling tough-on crime data, but they also lead to death, as well as create a culture of suspicion and divide.

I agree that police unions have shaped protocol to benefit their own. But the union should have ZERO voice in establishing STATE protocol for citizen engagement. We need sweeping laws that codify such protocol; police unions can't change the law, no matter how much leverage they have in negotiation. Take the policy-making out of individual police agencies hands, and you also get rid of the influence of unions, there.

I think such an assessment is absolutely possible, although difficult. If a police officer can assess that a person is reaching into a pocket, that same police officer can place such an action in context of the danger/risk. Pulling someone over for a traffic ticket is the kind of context where someone reaching for something, shouldn't automatically cause a police officer to fear for his life. Other situations, where a crime of violence is suspected or a robbery has taken place, a suspect reaching for something unseen, might reasonably cause police to fear for their lives. In any case, protocol that buys police officers time to make a decision, rather than just react will result in lives saved. We can't take away the police's responsibility to assess each situation; we've allowed them to apply a blanket protocol (which serves to protect them and not the citizen) to all situations no matter how likely or unlikely it is for danger to actually occur.

I think in both situations, the police panicked. Police protocol deals with that phenomenon in the exact wrong way, to assume that the panic is reasonably-based fear. As for prosecuting police, it shouldn't even be question--police should be held to higher standard of upholding the law and safeguarding life, not a lower one, that grants them immunity from systematically negligent behavior.

I might characterize the presumption we should put in place is one to protect life at even the risk to the cop him/herself. The problem is the training that seeks to protect police from any potential risk with deadly force. The standard should never be "the person was reaching in his pocket": the tactical training of a police officer whose weapon is drawn should allow for enough time for the police to assess the situation. In Minnesota the cop made the assumption that he was reaching for his weapon and not his wallet, and this is an assumption that police are trained to make--but that assumption makes no sense when a person is seated in a car, in no position to draw, aim and take the police officer down. As soon as a citizen announces that he has a concealed weapon. The cop should withdraw, and command the person at distance to get out of the car, etc. Police are trained to react to even unreasonable suspicions of fear to protect themselves. It's not individual police make individual assessments that is the problem; it's that the protocol relies on the subjective emotion of a police officer, who have been tactically but not emotionally trained. I think we also need to reassess our hiring tradition of the police; we need value less the tactical prowess and far more the capacity to make reasonable judgments in tense situations. There needs to be caution when considering former military personnel because their training--esp. in regard to the requisite emotional disposition--flies in the face of what we want from police; there is already a great danger that the police treat citizens (whom they believe to be a criminal) as enemy combatants. That police were murdered systematically while protecting the peace at a lawful assembly makes my blood boil; I hope that tragedy won't derail an honest assessment of police protocol and tactics. I know that policing by the Constitution should be left to the States, but I really think we need a national solution, national protocols and standards for police training. Part of the problem has been that individual police agencies have become too autonomous and have too little oversight.

This is beautiful. Cheers.

Look at this culture of violence. What is happening in Dallas?

I fully endorse the idea that she acted 'carelessly.' That's just a far cry from criminal misconduct or absurd errors in judgment. But now we're just picking nits.

I just can't really draw many conclusions from the private server incident. I think she exerted too much control and did an end-run-around the department of state, but that seems typical career politician behavior, not necessarily a real indication of inept judgment. I have lots of issues with Clinton but I actually don't think she's some how inept, or makes frequent poor decisions.

I take the FBI Director at his word when he said no reasonable prosecutor would have brought the indictment. And I'd rather not speculate on what kind of evidence would have garnered an indictment, because I don't really know. But there's plenty more facts that could have better demonstrated criminal wrongdoing. For instance, evidence of actual harm as a result of the supposed leaks or evidence of her benefiting financially or otherwise from the private server. I'm sure many agree with and would have the law hold mere negligence as criminally liable in matters of national security, but the FBI are bound by the statutes that codify the actionable law (and admittedly, I don't know the full details here); but in all criminal proceedings that mens rea element matters a great deal, whether the outcome protects national security or not. The culpable party in my opinion is the slow-to-change regulatory system that should have had clear rules of procedure set up long before Clinton in 2008 occupied the office. I don't agree with the decision Clinton made to set up a personal server, but its somewhat preferable to using a yahoo account. Clinton should have gone through official channels to safeguard an alternative, "personal" account, but that by itself without evidence of actual harm or some kind of culpable mindset makes prosecution seem unworkable to me.

She's not getting off on an technicality, and that's how your post makes it sound. Having intent is huge part of what makes one thing a crime, and another an act of negligence. Here, the FBI didn't even have evidence of gross negligence (a pretty high bar to be fair), much less intent. We may not like that she was sloppy, but her behavior fell well short of criminality. For the people that already buy the Hilary-hate, it reinforces the position. For everyone else, it just keeps the waters muddy. The results of this report, even as full-fledged endorsement of her behavior, would not have cleared up the perception that Hillary Clinton is in fact a career politician.

We'll all work on being more politically correct when speaking about those with antiquated views...

I can believe it, but I can't believe it.

I can't believe people just ignore the necessity of criminal intent. There just never was any, and if corruption would have played a hand it would have been with an indictment.

I feel like this thread as merged with the gamethread or something...

I like it. Let's employ a dog-security force at all public businesses and institutions.

IIRC, there were armed individuals in Orlando (who I believe exchanged fire with the punk; an off duty cop maybe?) and I know there were armed people in Tucson, who didn't open fire (thankfully), the Tucson shooter was taken out by a folding chair and tackled by a 74 year old retired Army Colonel. The tactical training required to effectively take out an active shooter with eliciting collateral injuries is something most common gun owners just don't have.

Random thought: Jon should grant the Bolton lands to the wildlings. House Tormund, anyone? Also HBO released this busy, rather unworkable infographic, that confirms who Jon's father is (as if there was any doubt).

Five thirty eight/Nate Silver released their General Election forecast today.