Go to What Country Am I In?
- Add a comment
- Go to 92-Year-Old Woman And New York Groom May Be Cases Of Excessive Force
And, Blanche, it is good people such as yourself who help keep the police
in check as well as support them when a job is well done. There is a societal need for policing, but there is also a basic need for society to set up standards for policing the police. Unconstrained power leads to loss of freedom (and life). It is people such as yourself that ensure that the police will never, if it is within your power, have that kind of power.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 3, 2006 at 1:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, I am not prepared to accept it, Saul, I feel for the police, I really
do. A King County Deputy was shot and killed this weekend, a lfie is a terrible thing to waste, and I do not wish that on anyone. It's a jungle here in the US
posted by
Blanche.
on December 3, 2006 at 12:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Unfortunately, Blanche, it is one of the grudgingly accepted aspects of the
human condition...
posted by
saul_relative
on December 3, 2006 at 12:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Sad state of affairs, Saul
posted by
Blanche.
on December 3, 2006 at 11:15 AM
| link to this | reply
It is often the case that those who wield power corrupt those they are
sworn to protect simply to continue, for the first priority of the powerful generally is the preservation of that power. If they cannot eliminate through good or bad works, they cover up. This is the second worst aspect of power. The first is it's nature of corruptness, how it prospers at the expense of others.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 2, 2006 at 8:40 AM
| link to this | reply
A very good question, Saul, and dead men tell no tales
Dead old ladies don't either. Awfully convenient. that.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 1, 2006 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
You're absolutely right, Blanche. There's something wrong with this
story. Celebratory men usually don't intentionally ram pedestrians (remember, the officers were undercover, so how would the victim know he was running into a cop?). If the victim was too drunk to drive, he still didn't deserve to be killed, even if he ran into another person with his car. If the victim actually tried to run over the cop, why? There are a few things missing in this story. And what about those two wounded men that were also in the car? What are their statements?
posted by
saul_relative
on December 1, 2006 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul, it's been a bad week for police fatalities, first the Atlanta grandma
now the 2 guys shot 50 plus times in New York, coming out of a strip club, celebrating one of their bachelor parties. The details on why the police fired are hazy and what gets me is the New York Times story that the prosecutors refuse to investigate police shootings because it could jeopardize future cases.
There is just somehtng wrong here when the police get a free pass to kill.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 1, 2006 at 8:03 AM
| link to this | reply
A very good point you bring up, Prof. Personally, I really don't beleive
the "no-knock policy" is Constitutional -- it so much smacks against the rights of privacy and invasion of home. And I agree that not much is done in the area of punishment when an officer mistakenly (or not) fires upon, wounds or kills, someone because of the suspected weapon in their hand. There should be stiffer penalties, including murder or manslaughter charges, against officers who shoot unarmed civilians. Making harmful mistakes are one thing, making one that kills someone should be dealt with in a more socially equal manner. Hell, most of those guys who "wrongfully shoot" someone remain on the force in their current positions. Don't you think that someone who thinks a cell phone or whatever is a gun should be relegated to desk duty, or at least taken off of duty that involves continual contact with civilians (other than, say, clerical)?
posted by
saul_relative
on December 1, 2006 at 8:00 AM
| link to this | reply
The undebated "Death Penalty"
There is considerable debate over the ethics of the death penalty in this country (and there should be). But so very little attention is given to officer involved shootings and high-speed pursuits that it makes we wonder where our priorities are. I mean, how many people are executed each year? 50? 100? And all after trials, juries, appeals, and lond deliberation. But how many people are shot & killed by police who "reasonably feared for their life" by a "suspect" sometimes armed with a cell phone, wallet or car keys? Or people shot by the recently legalized "no knock" drug raids while merely defending their homes?
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on November 30, 2006 at 2:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Possibly, Pat B. These cases are never cut-and-dried -- on either side.
And there's something to be said about "keeping the peace" by imminent threat of force. Scary. That 88-year-old woman has been upgraded again to 92. I wish these damned newscasters would make up their mind.
posted by
saul_relative
on November 29, 2006 at 9:05 PM
| link to this | reply
I was in Seattle during the WTO protests Nov. 30, 1999.
And I saw the live video of the police riot in the Capitol Hill area that night. I had known since the massacre at Kent State in the dim past that our police and national guard will fire on citizens - armed, unarmed or otherwise. Of course it's abuse of power, excessive force. Their duty is to keep the peace - translation, keep civilians scared and obedient.
So when an 88-year-old grandmother shoots 3 cops busting down her door for no apparent reason, maybe it will make them think twice the next time. They never heard of the polite knock?
I think they just like the drama and the action, and they couldn't care less if the "perps" are innocent.
posted by
Pat_B
on November 29, 2006 at 6:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for reading, star4you.
posted by
saul_relative
on November 28, 2006 at 9:23 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
star4sky5
on November 28, 2006 at 9:15 PM
| link to this | reply