Another incident with black men getting shot by police

[Malcador]

Resisting, disrespecting or otherwise antagonizing cops seems to increase the odds that they will use force against you by a significant margin (~6 times more likely, from one report). That does not mean cops are thugs, or at least, data doesn't seem to support that assessment. At least, until we define what is a thug and how often does a thug resort to force in interactions with citizens.

Doesn't, but treating them like you do a strange dog (any of them can bite you) is just prudent.

 

As for cops shooting you for not complying, well, that probably depends on the PD. Refusing to comply will probably get you roughed up a lot at best.

[213374U]

I'd think that - for the majority of cases - the implied threat of an order from law enforcement is "comply or you will be taken to jail" not "comply or I'll shoot your ass".

 

Doesn't, but treating them like you do a strange dog (any of them can bite you) is just prudent.

As for cops shooting you for not complying, well, that probably depends on the PD. Refusing to comply will probably get you roughed up a lot at best.

 

No. Police authority is rooted on and exists to preserve the monopoly on violence. This includes, but is not limited to, deadly force. Therefore, any commands issued by an agent of law enforcement carry implicit a threat of escalating force, up to deadly force.

 

If you fail to put your hands on the wheel when ordered to, you will not be (immediately) shot in most cases. They will force you to comply with their commands by other, increasingly more violent means. If you keep on resisting, including physically standing up to their own use of force to enforce your compliance, probability of you being shot approaches 1. It should be obvious how this is fundamentally different from a teacher telling some kid to shut it or your boss telling you to come to his office.

[Amentep]

Even going with Webber's theories, the fact that the state owns the monoply of the legitimate use of force does not follow that any command given by law enforcement is backed up solely by the state's monopoly.

 

Its a bit like saying that because a bank holds all of your money that you've deposited, if the teller asks you to show your ID during a transaction that the natural consequence of failure to comply is backed up by the bank permanently taking all of your money. While it might be that ultimately the bank could do that and do it legally, all that is going to happen in the immediate term is the cessation of the transaction.

 

Therefore I stand by my assertion that logically, any given command by a police officer that is not in itself an indicator of escalation to violence is not necessarily backed up by the concept of violence.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

We should also probably keep in mind the fact that the police are dealing with a very different audience than a teacher or a bank teller.  Hostility is the status quo in many places that as police officer has to go.  If you walk into Wells Fargo shouting "F the Roth IRA!" then you will probably have a pretty bad banking experience.

[Valsuelm]

Even going with Webber's theories, the fact that the state owns the monoply of the legitimate use of force does not follow that any command given by law enforcement is backed up solely by the state's monopoly.

 

Its a bit like saying that because a bank holds all of your money that you've deposited, if the teller asks you to show your ID during a transaction that the natural consequence of failure to comply is backed up by the bank permanently taking all of your money. While it might be that ultimately the bank could do that and do it legally, all that is going to happen in the immediate term is the cessation of the transaction.

 

Therefore I stand by my assertion that logically, any given command by a police officer that is not in itself an indicator of escalation to violence is not necessarily backed up by the concept of violence.

 

 

Good luck disobeying a police officer who thinks they have a right to demand of you whatever it is they are demanding and not having violence soon visited upon you then. And if you actively defend yourself from that violence, or even just reflexively react to it so the cop can say you did something threatening, good luck not getting killed. And if that happens I'm sure a thread here will be started, and many people will say killing you was justified because you didn't comply with the officer's demands and then threatened or attacked the officer (they will completely ignore the fact that you were attacked first).

Edited February 6, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

Yeah, according to Gromnir, your best option when dealing with police is to do nothing and simply report them after they put a bullet in your head.

[Hurlshort]

 

Even going with Webber's theories, the fact that the state owns the monoply of the legitimate use of force does not follow that any command given by law enforcement is backed up solely by the state's monopoly.

 

Its a bit like saying that because a bank holds all of your money that you've deposited, if the teller asks you to show your ID during a transaction that the natural consequence of failure to comply is backed up by the bank permanently taking all of your money. While it might be that ultimately the bank could do that and do it legally, all that is going to happen in the immediate term is the cessation of the transaction.

 

Therefore I stand by my assertion that logically, any given command by a police officer that is not in itself an indicator of escalation to violence is not necessarily backed up by the concept of violence.

 

 

Good luck disobeying a police officer who thinks they have a right to demand of you whatever it is they are demanding and not having violence soon visited upon you then. And if you actively defend yourself from that violence, or even just reflexively react to it so the cop can say you did something threatening, good luck not getting killed. And if that happens I'm sure a thread here will be started, and many people will say killing you was justified because you didn't comply with the officer's demands and then threatened or attacked the officer (they will completely ignore the fact that you were attacked first).

 

 

It requires no luck at all.  It would actually require a metric ton of bad luck to get into such a situation as a law abiding citizen.  Most people are never going to be anywhere near an escalating force situation with the police.  

[Amentep]

Good luck disobeying a police officer who thinks they have a right to demand of you whatever it is they are demanding and not having violence soon visited upon you then.

Why would I disobey the officer, unless the request was unlawful? And if the request *was* unlawful I'm pretty much screwed whether the person was a police officer or any other person with a gun.

 

And if you actively defend yourself from that violence, or even just reflexively react to it so the cop can say you did something threatening, good luck not getting killed. And if that happens I'm sure a thread here will be started, and many people will say killing you was justified because you didn't comply with the officer's demands and then threatened or attacked the officer (they will completely ignore the fact that you were attacked first).

And again, why would I defend myself from a legitimate, reasonable request from a police officer? And if it wasn't a reasonable request, why would I resist (risking being maced, shot, tazed) instead of going to jail and pleading my case before a judge?

 

The general rule of thumb - as I understand it - is play along with people have guns unless they ask you to go to your knees (as at that point you're guaranteed they're going to kill you).

Edited February 6, 2015 by Amentep

[Valsuelm]

The point was, that government power is backed up with the ultimate threat of deadly force. Neither of you are able to dispute this, you only assert that you think it would be unwise to not comply. You bow down before the threat ever needs to overtly be made. Nevertheless, it is always there whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

Step out of the box.

 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Amentep]

The point was, that government power is backed up with the ultimate threat of deadly force. Neither of you are able to dispute this,

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence.

 

you only assert that you think it would be unwise to not comply.

And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist?

 

I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!"

 

You bow down before the threat ever needs to overtly be made.

Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society.

 

But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here.

[Malcador]

The general rule of thumb - as I understand it - is play along with people have guns unless they ask you to go to your knees (as at that point you're guaranteed they're going to kill you).

Pretty much, if it is unjustified you'll get off (the cop'll get severely punished too, heh..) so in the end not worth arguing with what potentially is some meathead lusting for a soldier moment.

[Gromnir]

Yeah, according to Gromnir, your best option when dealing with police is to do nothing and simply report them after they put a bullet in your head.

our advice is specifically tailored to prevent personal injury.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68564-black-celebrity-claims-police-herassement-for-kissing-white-man-in-public/?p=1510179

 

observe bester's video which followed... is an example o' what val and bester and vol suggest is proper.  the homophobe who were forced to eat glass woulda' won his case... he did win his case, but by not following instructions, he suffered. why?  what did he gain?

 

is there situations wherein a mouthful o' glass or even a bullet in the head is a risk worth taking?  sure.  amentep offered one.  and perhaps you has a situation wherein you is protecting an innocent person from imminent physical harm, or maybe you actual is standing in front o' a metaphorical tank in tienanmen.  but be a **** with cops 'cause it is your perceived right to do so?  is nothing noble about refusing cops for no other reason than to make a point that you should be able to be defiant to cops.  is dumb.  you wanna make cops suffer? take 'em to court.  bester's example is ideal, 'cause it shows that the law protects even the worst o' us.  unfortunately for some o' you idiots, you gotta be alive to personal take advantage o' the system. manage to get yourself shot 'cause o' clownish notions o' right to be defiant when confronting an agitated and armed police officer who might actual be racists or mentally unstable is, perhaps, an example o' darwinism at work.  you genuine think a cop is racist or has a screw loose?  that is all the more reason to be polite until you can be safely removed from his/her influence. why give the a-hole cop an excuse?

 

freaking use some common sense.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

Gronmir is pro armed robbery and mass murderers. If a person has a gun you should obey no matter what. You just proved our point. Cops are nothing but thugs with a nice uniform. That's all we're saying. And, grom's the lawyer who will defend those cops' rights to murder civilians even thoguh the motto is supposed to be 'protect and serve' not 'harass and murder'. LMAO

[Valsuelm]

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"

 

"Protect and Serve"

 

"We have always been at war with Eastasia"

[Valsuelm]

 

The point was, that government power is backed up with the ultimate threat of deadly force. Neither of you are able to dispute this,

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence.

 

you only assert that you think it would be unwise to not comply.

And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist?

 

I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!"

 

You bow down before the threat ever needs to overtly be made.

Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society.

 

But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here.

 

 

No one is saying "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!". All we were saying is that cops ultimately have the threat of death behind their words. Will all cops assault you if you fail to comply? No, but many will. Will all cops kill you if you defend yourself? No, but many will, and the state will almost always support them in both cases. Even much of the populace blindly will. That's all that was being said.

 

Whether it's wise to comply or not is entirely situational, and not really relevant to the point that was made.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

I'd think that - for the majority of cases - the implied threat of an order from law enforcement is "comply or you will be taken to jail" not "comply or I'll shoot your ass".

 

Doesn't, but treating them like you do a strange dog (any of them can bite you) is just prudent.

As for cops shooting you for not complying, well, that probably depends on the PD. Refusing to comply will probably get you roughed up a lot at best.

 

No. Police authority is rooted on and exists to preserve the monopoly on violence. This includes, but is not limited to, deadly force. Therefore, any commands issued by an agent of law enforcement carry implicit a threat of escalating force, up to deadly force.

 

If you fail to put your hands on the wheel when ordered to, you will not be (immediately) shot in most cases. They will force you to comply with their commands by other, increasingly more violent means. If you keep on resisting, including physically standing up to their own use of force to enforce your compliance, probability of you being shot approaches 1. It should be obvious how this is fundamentally different from a teacher telling some kid to shut it or your boss telling you to come to his office.

 

I first thought your link was some pseudo-intellectual justification to basically undermine the work that the police need to do, in fact you may read this and think the writer is being critical of the police but he does say that the usage of this monopoly of violence by the police needs to be legitimate 

 

But I still have an issue with the point behind the article, the police have a job to do and work under very stressful conditions and sometimes make real life and death decisions. The last thing they need is some smartass deciding to not follow there instructions but its unfair to say the police have a monopoly on violence. This may be a debate around semantics but the police don't have a monopoly on  violence. They sometimes use force to do there jobs...big difference 

[ManifestedISO]

 

our advice is specifically tailored to prevent personal injury.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Free professional advice. I am saving money hand over fist in this thread. 

[Amentep]

All we were saying is that cops ultimately have the threat of death behind their words.

In theory, yes I'll agree with that. I think there are other, more likely weights to their word (tickets, jail time) but ultimately force/death is there at the back of the whole thing.

 

Will all cops assault you if you fail to comply? No, but many will. Will all cops kill you if you defend yourself? No, but many will, and the state will almost always support them in both cases.

This is the part that I'm getting lost on. Why do you fail to comply or "defend" yourself? Is the cop asking you to do something illegal or immoral?

 

Because if not, I tend to agree with Gromnir here, the better course of action is to let the cop arrest you, cite you, ticket you or whatever and then fight it in court if the officer is wrong.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Amentep

[Barothmuk]

That assumes you can trust the court.

[Valsuelm]

You might fail to comply with the police for any number of reasons. just as you might fail to comply with anyone for any number of reasons. Here's a few of the top of my head though: What the cop is demanding of you might be unlawful, it might be immoral, if you comply there will be great cost to yourself or someone you care about, if you comply your life might be effectively ruined (ie: you're guilty of something that will likely send you to jail for some serious time), you might misunderstand the officer, the officer's directions might not be clear, and so on.

 

The same is true of having to defend yourself. Though a situation where one might have to defend oneself or someone else from violence from a police officer is less common than a situation where one might not comply, it is sadly not too uncommon.

 

What the better course of action is, is entirely situational. It might be to cooperate fully and even get arrested, it might not. It might not be clear what the better course of action is when the scenario is unfolding for the people in it either. Nor might people take the better course of action at the time, whatever that is (sometimes people are in Catch-22 scenarios). And whatever course of action is best, whether taken or not, few people are justifiably assaulted or killed by police (or anyone else) on a moral or ethical basis.

 

Question authority. Stand up to it if need be (or flee it even). Obviously one generally doesn't want to get injured or killed, so going along with BS sometimes is prudent. However, sometimes it is not. If everyone just bowed down to authority all the time everyone except those in authority would effectively be slaves.

 

I could give you numerous examples, some of them personal (as yea, I've not always fully complied with police myself (and I have no criminal record)), but here's one video of some folks who aren't fully complying with police and are perfectly within their rights to do so, and another video of very good advice on how to handle the police if you're ever in a situation where you have to deal with them.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

Note: What someone is within their rights to do varies from nation to nation, and sometimes to a large degree. What I write here, and what these videos show and discuss, applies fully if you're in the U.S., it might not apply fully if you live somewhere else.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Amentep]

That assumes you can trust the court.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying?

 

 

You might fail to comply with the police for any number of reasons. just as you might fail to comply with anyone for any number of reasons.

So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street?

 

Here's a few of the top of my head though: What the cop is demanding of you might be unlawful, it might be immoral,

I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above).

 

if you comply there will be great cost to yourself or someone you care about,

And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law?

 

if you comply your life might be effectively ruined (ie: you're guilty of something that will likely send you to jail for some serious time),

Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law?

 

you might misunderstand the officer, the officer's directions might not be clear, and so on.

 

This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one.

 

Question authority.

And we're back to sticking it to the man.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Amentep

[Gromnir]

val didn't bother to watch the second video.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68564-black-celebrity-claims-police-herassement-for-kissing-white-man-in-public/?p=1510179

 

"furthermore, and we know people has a hard time distinguishing, but real world cops always ask for id- is a way they gauge suspicion. like it or not, but cops asking for id is hardly compelling you to provide such even if you feel the weight o' authority 'pon you. however, if you don't provide id and refuse to answer simple questions, then cops who already had some level o' suspicion may become convinced that you really is guilty o' something. if you go bat-crap crazy while refusing to provide id and answer questions, they can claim that you were appearing drugged or intoxicated. illegal arrest is possible an outcome, but you is extreme unlikely to win any kind o' judgement 'gainst cops if they already has cause for suspicion, and in the meantime they can bring you down to the station and put you through a full intake process. 

 

 

""If you are carrying one, you don't have to show it or identify yourself unless you've been arrested for a crime, or in some cases ticketed for a violation

people get very confused."

 

"law says you don't need provide info, but real world has you getting arrested needlessly for such defiance is jackarse stoopid.  in All case you should show id if you are ticketed 'cause you can be detained for failing to do so.  this ain't a "some cases" scenario. you get ticketed? show id. people get defiant with cops for various reasons and it rarely benefits the angry citizen. when cops show up and question you someplace other than your home, ask if you can leave. if they answer "yes," well, problem solved-- leave. if they answer "no," then you ask, "why" and they gotta explain. if cops wanna search you (or your home) ask for a warrant. if they don't have a warrant, make sure they know you is not agreeing to the search. IF you are stopped for questioning pursuant to a crime, give the cops your gosh darn name and ID, duh. that don't mean you gotta get chatty with the cops. if you don' wanna talk to cops, tell cops you don't wanna talk After providing id. if you are arrested, make sure the cops tell you why you is being arrested. do not resist a patdown pursuant to an arrest, and for the love o' gawd, do not run... particularly from a k-9 unit. those dogs do not f around. make sure cops know you is not volunteering, but don't resist or run. 

 

"car situations is similar, but in all cases in which you are stopped while driving, you are required to provide id, so there is no ambiguity. refuse to sign a ticket doesn't do you any good, so find some other way to vent spleen. again, make sure you clear state that you is not volunteering to submit your vehicle or person to a search.

 

"regardless, not providing id is always a stoopid move.  am knowing some folks gets angry 'bout what they see is their Right to be defiant, and you do have such a right, but it is, from a practical perspective, stoopid to exercise such a right without having a particular compelling reason to do so. you is likely to get yourself arrested, and you ain't gonna win some kinda multi-million dollar case 'gainst police department. 

 

"oh, and while it sounds silly, particular if you is a minority, keep your car free of interior clutter. "plain view" rules is such that if cops are able to see possible evidence in plain view, they can seize that evidence. once the cops justifiably (or arguable justified) get you outta your car and they get into your car... *shrug* having a messy car interior is arguably providing cops with reason enough to search."

 

 

 

the professor is telling you not to get chatty with police, which Gromnir already observed is your right... see bolded above.  professor is not telling you to be an arse to the cops.  professor doesn't tell you to resist arrest. professor doesn't say to resist patdown or to run from the cops. for chrissakes, how often does we need to have val give bad legal advice before people stop listening to him?

 

repeating self but do the following. be polite. show id. ask if you can leave? if answer is "yes," do so. follow instructions. if being arrested, ask cops to tell you why you is being arrested.  if cops wanna search you, your car or your house, ask for warrant. if no warrant tell them you ain't volunteering, but don't resist.

 

morons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 9, 2015 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Huh, I didn't know they needed a warrant to give you a pat down. Or do you mean something else by "search you"?

[Valsuelm]

 

That assumes you can trust the court.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying?

 

 

You might fail to comply with the police for any number of reasons. just as you might fail to comply with anyone for any number of reasons.

So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street?

 

Here's a few of the top of my head though: What the cop is demanding of you might be unlawful, it might be immoral,

I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above).

 

if you comply there will be great cost to yourself or someone you care about,

And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law?

 

if you comply your life might be effectively ruined (ie: you're guilty of something that will likely send you to jail for some serious time),

Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law?

 

you might misunderstand the officer, the officer's directions might not be clear, and so on.

 

This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one.

 

Question authority.

And we're back to sticking it to the man.

 

 

No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not.

 

I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

[Gromnir]

w/o a warrant, you can be searched incident to an arrest.  otherwise, cops need reasonable suspicion that you is possibly armed to pat you down (there is some very limited exceptions). regardless, is always good to state that you is not volunteering. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the reason we made the point about specifically saying you ain't volunteering is because Conset Searches can transform a bad search into one that is Constitutional valid. if cops don't have a warrant and don't have right to arrest and don't have reasonable suspicion, but you consent when cops ask if is ok to search your person or car or briefcase or home, then you has just given up rights against unreasonable searches. don't volunteer, and make sure the cops know you is not volunteering.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Gromnir