You guys seen this? This is really sick. The video is surreal. The cop orders a drunken man to follow impossibly precise orders while screaming at him and telling him he'll shoot if he makes a mistake. Whereas walking up and putting handcuffs would have been easy. Then he executes him because the drunken man couldn't figure out how to walk while kneeling without lowering his hands. Of course he didn't have a weapon.

Why do we let murderous psychopaths become cops? The whole song and dance with the instructions seems obviously unnecessary to me, and I can only imagine it was a pretext to shoot him when the guy messed up. I am guessing it never crossed the cop's mind to avoid the complicated procedure because in the back of his mind he wanted to kill this guy.

Anyway, it looks like the jury acquitted the police officer who did this on all counts. I believe he was fired from the force, but maybe it would be nice next time if they didn't give murderous psychopaths who inscribe "YOU'RE ****ED" on their rifle a badge in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Daniel_Shaver
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/7ika4l/exarizona_police_officer_acquitted_of_murder_in/

Just to be clear, it would seem that there are two police officers involved here: one barking the orders to Shaver, and the other, whose bodycam footage was released (and who is taking the blame for all of this, and not without good reason, as he did pull the trigger). However, I believe that it was the commanding officer who really is to blame for all of this. But it's a bit different from my original interpretation, where they were one and the same, and in that case it looked like a pretext for murder. Now it just looks like pathetically incompetent cops scared silly at the sight of a drunken man.

And hey, guess where this happened? Maricopa county. What is Maricopa county? Well I'm not so sure, but I do know I never want to live there. I know one person who does live there, though. His name is Joe Arpaio.

WTF is up with Maricopa county?

.

That behavior from the police would only be acceptable if the guy was wearing a ****ing explosive vest.

Also, really should be said, people should have been listening to what black people have been saying about the police for decades. Specially if people think this **** wouldn't have been written up as if the guy was "threatening" the police had there not been body cams.

I wonder to what extent criticizing the sentiment that All Lives Matter (specifically the sentiment -- not the slogan, which is probably, in most instances, used by people who are deniers) has hindered Black Lives Matter. An element of Black Lives Matter has been to try to claim police brutality as a problem that African Americans are uniquely subject to. Some go so far as to say that if you're white it's impossible to really understand the constant fear. I wouldn't deny that blacks and whites live in very different places psychologically when it comes to fearing random acts of police brutality despite being innocent. But this video destroyed me, in part because it made perfectly clear that, in some instances with cops, it doesn't matter what you do or who you are. They'll shoot you. It could happen to anyone who just happens to cross paths with an ******* cop.

So I wonder if there's another strategy, where pointing out that being shoot to death by a power tripping cop is something that can happen to anyone, and isn't a specifically black problem. Perhaps BLM could draw people to their cause, not because their "empathetic" or "allies", but because they're stakeholders.

Even if it took the widows of victims of racist murder by cop to instigate the whole body cam movement, people can now see that you don't have to be black to get steamrolled by one of these frightened FPS larpers /military rejects in uniform. The long tail of tribal instincts deeply persists among the dumber swaths of the population, and for better or for worse, this is more likely to convince them on a visceral level. Also this:

I didn't read all this yet, but let me say that it's interesting to ask whether or not the cause of the advance of minorities has ever been achieved without finally goading the negligent white populace to actively try to solve the issue. E.g., the civil rights movement happened with the support of many whites and also a lot of arm twisting of southern governers.

At any rate, however great the moral crimes against the black population are, for purely political reasons it might make sense to try and jettison the tribal propaganda (like that NWA video, which is not going to do anything for racist whites except reinforce the stereotype of angry and dangerous black men), and look for "neutral" examples like this to prove unequivocally that this a systemic issue. Just don't tell them that solving it will disproportionately help blacks, since they suffer the greatest under the present regime.

I think all lives matter is totally the wrong slogan. It is a reaction to black lives matter, and an immature and racially tinged one at that.

Much better would be "non-blue" lives matter. This puts the focus on the real problem.

Ta-Nehisi Coates makes a point similar to this. The times in American history where the US has actually made strides on issues of race have generally been times when the wellbeing of blacks became a general concern of the whole country, and not only a specifically African American concern. The civil war is an obvious example, but it was also true of the civil rights movement in the 60s. As the US was making a push to lead the world by being an exemplary democracy, and trying to bring countries into its sphere of influence in the Cold War context, the situation of blacks under segregation became a massive problem for America's image throughout the world. Thus, segregation and Jim Crow weren't really addressed until they were seen as issues that all citizens had a stake in.

(At least that's the argument he makes. I don't really know the history of the period, but I have heard that a lot of Soviet propaganda did point out the hypocrisy of the US' treatment of blacks.)

100% agree. Hope that was clear from my initial post.

I don't think anyone in BLM is against "ALM" on principle of the phrase itself, but rather its use as a Russian-inspired whataboutism to distract from the charge that racially discriminatory police brutality occurs on a regular, systematic level. Of course there have been BLM activists who have said silly things, just don't lose the forest for the trees.

Well said.

Damn now I really wish i didn't put that bit about all lives matters in... think it distracted from everything else I said.

Orange lives matter.

What I was getting at was something more like this: according to this paper, when it comes to non-lethal use of force, it's absolutely true that blacks and hispanics are disproportionately the victims of coercive force. But when it comes to lethal use of force, blacks aren't actually murdered by cops at a higher rate than whites. In fact, whites are actually shot by cops at a higher rate. It's a Yale paper, but I don't know if this is representative of the best work or of most of the work that's out there. I haven't actually looked into it at all. But just assuming that it is true, (and THIS is really my point) perhaps a more productive, effective narrative, that would make it easier to get whites on board with fighting police brutality, would be one where whites and blacks are stakeholders in the same suffering, subject to the same arbitrary violence, and thus have a shared stake in fighting it, rather than one where it's a foregone conclusion that it's specifically a black problem, and whites ought to care about it because that's what it means to be an enlightened, aware liberal in 2017, and, if you don't, you're probably a Trump voter.

What kind of jury selection process was this?

"Are you a bootlicker? Are you a gun nut? Do you long for a burglar to break into your house so you can defend yourself with lethal force? Welcome aboard!"

Not sure about the jury, but the ex-officer who pulled the trigger said he was 100% certain he would do it again.

I would assume the problem was with jury instructions, not with jury selection.

This turned out to be the case. The jury was instructed to consider whether the officer was acting appropriately given his training, and were specifically instructed not to deliberate whether the killing was more generally justified, as if it were committed by an untrained civilian, or whether they believe police are being trained properly.

The jury basically had no choice but to acquit under these instructions. Police are trained to defend themselves quite aggressively, so almost any violent police action can be credibly blamed on their training.

Sadly, these kinds of jury instructions are a major criminal justice problem in the United States. American judges are known for drastic overreach in this area, sometimes going so far as issuing unconstitutional jury instructions and they are rarely held to account. Among other things, judges have no respect for jury nullification, which is an important mechanism by which the public can effectively veto unpopular laws.

Amusingly, IIRC, stating that you believe in jury nullification is supposedly one way of getting out of jury duty.

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

http://www.newsweek.com/police-officer-broke-shoppers-leg-over-tomato-743414

So uh, can we convince conservatives to stop worshipping these *******s?

It's nice that Walmart has found a way to pay police officers to selectively police their stores.

Seriously.

1.) The police officer was off-duty, working a second job as a security guard for Walmart.
2.) He was wearing his police uniform.
3.) He was open carrying his police issued firearm.
4.) Any reasonable person would think he was an on-duty police officer, not an employee of Walmart.
5.) Walmart knew about all of this.
6.) Immediately before this attack, a Walmart loss prevention manager ordered him to apprehend the suspected tomato thief.
7.) The police officer, paid and instructed to do so by Walmart, violently apprehended the suspect.
8.) The police officer, paid and instructed to do so by Walmart, arrested the suspect.
9.) The police officer falsified an arrest report, claiming the suspect had reached for his police-issued service pistol, which he openly carried with the ostensible authorization of his employer, Walmart.

And despite all of this, the charges ended up being:
1.) Excessive force
2.) Falsifying a police report

Instead of:
1.) Accepting bribes from Walmart
2.) Impersonating a law enforcement officer
3.) Battery
4.) Unlawful restraint
5.) Falsifying a police report
6.) Perjury

and instead of Walmart's managers being charged with:
1.) Offering bribes to a law enforcement officer
2.) Accessory to impersonating a law enforcement officer
3.) Negligence causing bodily harm

Like I understand the social benefit we get from off duty police officers being allowed to carry their firearms and make arrests, I really do. But maybe that privilege should end when the police officer isn't off duty so much as working private security for a corporation?? And maybe you shouldn't be allowed to wear your uniform when you are doing that???

You're typically not allowed to wear your uniform in any circumstance other than on duty. Most agencies require you to get permission before you can even wear it to your child's career day. This sounds like a screwed-up agency. Most agencies are heavily stepped in politics. This nutcase might have been someone's nephew, boyfriend, or just the favorite of the lieutenant. Also, with unions, it's hard to fire anybody these days.

Incidentally, the only time I ever fired my weapon on duty was at a white guy.

It's also worth mentioning that being a cop for a while can change your personality and temperament. Some of the **** you see can mess you up. I still have bad dreams and get cold sweats sometimes, more so during the holidays.

You're not a cop anymore? Why'd you stop?

I really only did it as a way to get out of my prior career. Law enforcement is one of the few professions that will hire someone with no previous experience or training and start them at a good wage (especially in California). It was less than I made at my other job, but it was worth it to get out of the area and start a new career in a new place.

Anyway, it turns out I hated it. It had it good aspects, but I tend to be independent and don't like blindly following orders, so I wasn't really a fit. I don't care for organizational politics, which is how every agency works. I also didn't like the 12-hour shifts we had to work. I typically worked four or five 12-hour shifts per week. It was terrible. Also, on duty, I got attacked a couple of times and my poor preggo wife was an emotional wreck. Right around the time I was vested in the pension program, I was involved in the aforementioned shooting incident. I had enough and resigned and started my own business, which is fairly successful and I don't have to work nearly as much or miss holidays or have a boss.

Huh. In your experience, is there is a certain type of person who is drawn toward being a cop? Or were a lot of people in a position similar to yours?

Also, did the training force you to change your personality in a significant way? Learn to override a lot of instincts, and so on?

Law enforcement is unique because it attracts a wide variety of people. Many of them were tired of their old jobs and wanted a so-called adventurous career. Many were not college or professional material. Others dreamed of it since they were a kid. And yet others just wanted solid pay and good benefits with little chance of downsizing, lay off, or much uncertainty in their career.

It's not so much the training that changes you, it's what you have to deal with on a daily basis. No one is ever happy to see a cop. If someone has to interact with a cop, it's because they did something wrong or something bad has happened. As soon as an officer approaches someone, they pull out their phone to record the whole thing, hoping for a payday. Dealing with jerks all day can really damage your mood.

You're also expected to be able to solve years of problems in a few minutes. You get called in to defuse a decades-long marriage crisis in just a few minutes. You're expected to perform your job flawlessly. It's hard maintaining civility when some spoiled frat boy and his friends are calling you every foul name and word in existence, or when a person who is clearly in the wrong plays the race/gender/minority whatever card. You learn to be cold-hearted, and that often continues when the uniform comes off.

Edit: you also have to see and deal with stuff no one should have to see or deal with. It's the same with paramedics, ER doctors, firemen, anyone who handles emergencies. You see a lot of bad things and over time it weighs you down. There were nights I would come home distraught and on the verge of tears, but couldn't tell my wife what happened because it's not something I wanted her to have to think about. There are accidents, abuses, and things so disgusting and wicked that they kill your ability to see anything good in the world. It's easy to get jaded.

These are not excuses for bad behavior, however. Most agencies have counselors and other resources available for dealing with trauma. It's part of the job, and they tell you that before you sign up. Your superiors are supposed to keep an eye on you and look out for you. Your friends and fellow officers are supposed to watch your back. You also have a responsibility to recognize when your mental state is changing. The unfortunate case of Daniel Shaver is as much a failure on the part of the agency as it is the individual.

It was probably hardly the fault of the individual at all, considering that he seems like a robot that would do whatever you trained him to.

The guy who pulled the trigger ****ed up, but what about the guy barking orders? He seemed to be on some kind of insane power trip.

No that's a regular power trip in uniformed armed services.