Definitely seen excessive use of force against seemingly peaceful protesters, but context is everything, and a 10 second snippet does not tell the full story of the interactions between that protester and that cop for the 45 minutes leading up to those 10 seconds.
I tend to reserve my judgement on those types of videos, since cops have been also taking a beating in the last few days with bricks, rocks, water bottles, etc... thrown at them off camera or before those clips start, where the convenient "editing" is done to portray the cops as the "bad guys" when often they have spent the last hour being insulted, assaulted and injured before they decide to move in with force on that "peaceful" protester...
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/cop-put-baton-george-floyd-pr...
Also who gives a shit if they just got verbally harassed for an hour. I don’t get to lose my shit and delete a project because someone keeps submitting bad code. Why do cops get to lose their temper when their job is to keep the peace and enforce the law. Learn to control yourself and do your job or find another profession.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
This means Chauvin could say he was acting under the "color of law" when he attempted to restrain George Floyd and during his restraint is when Floyd died. Because Chauvin was acting as a police officer and not a legal citizen, it was within his official duty as a police officer to apprehend someone who is breaking the law.
However, in the initial part of the statue, it clearly states:
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
This also means the prosecution can simply say that Chauvin was a known racist and violent around black people and his restraint was not an approved technique for restraining or arresting someone, therefore, based on those facts, the prosecution can make a compelling case that Chauvin attempted to use "color of law" to cover his willful infliction and in doing so, deprived George Floyd of his civil rights while doing so.
The shorter answer is yes, they can lose their temper because it might be required in the application of their duties as a police officer and officer of the government for which they serve. No, in that they cannot abuse that power and use "color of law" to deprive someone of their civil rights under the constitution.
This is probably the most disturbing thing I read about law enforcement. To me it translates into following: as an officer acting under "color of law" I am free to loose my temper and kill whoever the f..k I want for any reason as long as I am not doing it based on color/race/whatever. All I have to do is to "pretend to act in the performance of my duties".
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong (I sincerely hope I am).
What GP is referring to is a provision in the federal law that specifically criminalizes police activity undertaken under color of law. (Reading the statute, in this scenario, the police officer can be charged up to and including the death penalty).
As far as I'm aware, states' statutes for murder or manslaughter do not protect people acting under color of law.
Phew. thank you. Hopefully maiming is not protected as well.
This statement is emblematic of the fundamental problem affecting our culture.
I hate excessive violence. I hate excessive force. I can’t take anyone seriously if they argue that bad behavior doesn’t matter. Your 8 hour day in retail or at the office is not the same as working law enforcement during a riot.
It is entitlement or stupidity.
1. police forces need to limit their time, and forces that do not need to held accountable
2. they need to not be police
They _need_ to be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
It's a case of officers committing perjury as to the events that occurred to figuratively put a weapon into the scene.
The DAs slides https://twitter.com/wsbtv/status/1267843835889156097/photo/1
That's institutionalized malice aforethought in my book.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-car...
What possible context would make that okay? In what possible scenario is putting a man's hand on a weapon for the sole purpose of harming him reliant on context?
These are not meant at all to be snarky, these are my very real questions, because I'm confused by your statements.
I really feel sorry for the people in uniform who are genuinely trying to make a difference, when the few bad apples make sure that nobody can have nice things.
Something had to give though. There are only so many blatant crimes that can be committed by police only to go unpunished before people say Enough!
Worst of all, we are not talking about crimes that can be repaid or repaired. Murder is the ultimate crime in some sense as (ignoring religion) it's irreversible and the loss the victim and their loved ones have suffered is the ultimate loss that we can never undo.
The callousness and carelessness with which these crimes were carried out and the complete lack of remorse or even acknowledgment from leading figures in police unions is basically just more fuel on the fire.
The countless acts of kindness and compassion of (I assume) the majority of officers is unfortunately drowned out by these bad examples.
Something has to change. The police force clearly does not have the ability or will to solve this problem on their own.
Bias is now barely defined as "I didn't hear my opinion read back to me." and just about any event is used to discredit entire news organizations, reporters, etc. Write some less than positive articles about a company "they have an agenda" and so forth. We get it on HN here too.
A buddy of mine was a camera man. Not far from the station was a lake where they heard there was some sort of boating accident. He got there first as the station was across the street, emergency services hadn't showed up yet and the crowd that gathered got quite upset and accused them of exploiting the situation somehow as soon as they got out of their van.
It seems people assume poor intentions, not just on the media but in most cases now.
Does this make them legitimate targets for attack by the police?
Btw the same can be said about politicians.
https://www.policemag.com/342098/the-2016-police-presidentia...
So it's not that a cop embraces right wing ideals but rather the other way around: it's a job looked for by many people who feel the need to wear an uniform and carry a gun (exercise power, dominate others, there are lots of psychological implications). I'd say that also the cops who expressed respect for George Floyd might be Trump Supporters, although they don't agree with their colleagues violent methods.
My baseline assumption is a vast majority of police/sheriffs/troopers support Trump. Is this incorrect?
Majority blue areas will see more Democrat police, majority red (rural) will see more Republican sheriffs.
This is born out by the data I was able to find, but I can't vouch for the veracity: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
Sheriffs and State Troopers are very majority Republican, police are barely majority Democrat.
I suspect that if we had individual data per region, the affiliation would track with the local politics, maybe with +2 R across the board, or something like that.
I'm having a hard time understanding why this is wrong?
EDIT: "Meh, I'm not going to try and explain it, I'll just downvote it." Bravo. B R A V O.
“When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States flag’s right.”
But it is wrong, nonetheless -- it violates 4 U.S. Code § 7(c).
EDIT: Ok, downvoted for inductive reasoning, here is data point.
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1267883609886728193...
https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
Edit: Note that this is not a right/left thing. This is just literally history that gets ignored in our schools.
... What? I mean, what?
If merely calling someone or their actions white supremacist makes them suddenly start self-identifying as a white supremacist and they don't see a problem with that, maybe the original accusation wasn't that wrong?
The FBI warned of white supremacist infiltration of police forces over a decade ago.
More importantly, the history of US policing is firmly rooted in white supremacy.
> The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs. They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
Mr President, that's going to need some fact checking.
Whatever else you might think of this situation, it's impossible to deny something has shifted. Appeals to "it's just the same thing" are at best hollow, at worst placative.
In my personal experience, even most written news is junk. It just seems like it's not junk because it uses intellectual language and doesn't feature a man in a suit speaking loudly. All news leaves out key details and editorializes.
But some people don't see it this way, and it's scary that we are this fractured because it's hard to reconcile. If two people are reading the news and come to dipolar conclusions, how do they come to an agreement? For the sake of argument, let's say that one perspective on the news is accurate, and the other is inaccurate; the chances that the more correct person will be able to persuade the person with the less accurate view seems close to nil.
I've started watching foreign news coverage of the US. It seems better, but I can't yet tell how much; all news still love the sensational stuff.