The Possible Affect of Politically Expedient Prosecution

1.) Criminals may flee from a police officer without fear of pursuit.

You mean suspects, don't you?

If the BPD officers are convicted

Quote:

You mean suspects, don't you?

No, I mean criminals...like Freddie Gray:

giujohn wrote:


If the BPD officers are convicted

they will have been found guilty.

Police training will be reviewed, if that is not already underway.

you wont have to retrain the cops...they will just ignore it in the future...

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, in 2013 there were 461 “justifiable homicides” by police — defined as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” In all but three of these reported killings, officers used firearms.


The true number of fatal police shootings is surely much higher, however, because many law enforcement agencies do not report to the FBI database. Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.


By contrast, there were no fatal police shootings in Great Britain last year. Not one. In Germany, there have been eight police killings over the past two years. In Canada — a country with its own frontier ethos and no great aversion to firearms — police shootings average about a dozen a year.

Liberals and conservatives alike should be outraged at the frequency with which police in this country use deadly force. There is no greater power that we entrust to the state than the license to take life. To put it mildly, misuse of this power is at odds with any notion of limited government.

I realize that the great majority of police officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty. Most cops perform capably and honorably in a stressful, dangerous job; 27 were killed in 2013, according to the FBI. Easy availability of guns means that U.S. police officers — unlike their counterparts in Britain, Japan or other countries where there is appropriate gun control — must keep in mind the possibility that almost any suspect might be packing heat.

But any way you look at it, something is wrong. Perhaps the training given officers is inadequate. Perhaps the procedures they follow are wrong. Perhaps an “us vs. them” mentality estranges some police departments from the communities they are sworn to protect.


Whatever the reason, it is hard to escape the conclusion that police in this country are much too quick to shoot. We’ve seen the heartbreaking results most recently in the fatal shooting of 28-year-old Akai Gurley, an unarmed man who was suspected of no crime, in the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project, and the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was waving a toy gun around a park in Cleveland.

Burghart and others who have attempted to count and analyze police shootings shouldn’t have to do the FBI’s job. All law enforcement agencies should be required to report all uses of deadly force to the bureau, using a standardized format that allows comparisons and analysis.

Police departments that have nothing to hide should be eager to cooperate.

Canadian police kill more people in one year than UK police kill in 10, despite our countries having homicide rates in the same ballpark. This seems to be the result of different approaches to policing; in particular, most police officers in the UK do not carry guns. The typical British ‘bobby’ is expected to carry out her duties armed only with speed cuffs, a baton, and tear gas or pepper spray. Firearms are restricted to special units whose members have lots of experience and special training. If police in Canada were to adopt this approach, a lot of unnecessary tragedies could be averted.

But you may ask: If UK police do not carry guns, doesn’t that place them greater risk? Apparently not. Not a single British police officer has been murdered on the job since 2012.


<snip>



The British invented modern policing in the early 19th century, establishing the ‘Peelian Principles’ of policing by consent. One of those principles is “to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective“. British police seem to adhere more closely to these principles than Canadian police do. Perhaps we should look at them as a model for reform.

Quote:

You mean suspects, don't you?

No, I mean criminals...like Freddie Gray:

March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

You see, if a police officer sees a know drug dealer in a high crime area where drugs are slod open air, and when a known offender sees police and runs, THATS PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPECT A CRIME. AND WHEN HE RUNS THATS FLEEING/RESISTING ARREST

He was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant is what you are saying. That does make a lot of difference. Otherwise, he has a prior history which might lead one to suspect a crime.

He was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant is what you are saying.

Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings a year

The ONLY thing the cops did wrong was not follow procedure in belting him in his seat.

Police in other countries are able to arrest people without killing them.

roger wrote:

He was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant is what you are saying.

do you have anything about an outstanding warrant? I've been trying to find something but nada so far.

He was a fugitive with an outstanding warrant is what you are saying. That does make a lot of difference. O