No Justice, No Peace

What is a police officer supposed to do when he has reason to believe that there is a gun present, and the guy persists in reaching for "something" when repeatedly instructed to not do so?

The guy was reaching for his license as instructed to by the cop. He informed the cop he had a gun. Would he do that if planned on shooting the cop? You make it sound like the copy repeatedly told him to do anything and the guy repeatedly did something else. That's not what happened. It occurred and was over in seconds. The cop panicked. Maybe I would have too but I'm not allowed to pull people over and give them orders. I've not received training. I'm not a cop.

I don't think this cop was a malicious racist, I think he was a scared human being and he reacted out of terror not reason, but an innocent man died as a result and the cop killed him. Involuntary Manslaughter sounds right to me.

yup

That is incorrect. He had already handed the cop his driver's license. There was no request for his concealed weapons license. After being informed of the gun, the cop's exact instructions were "Don't reach for it." Then "Don't pull it out." Then with added urgency "Don't pull it out!"



He probably wasn't intending to shoot the cop. But it was pretty foolish to reach for something just after informing the cop about the gun and then being instructed to not reach for it.



It's pretty close to what happened. There were repeated instructions from the cop.

I'm sure there were not repeated moves by the guy in the car. More like one continuous move.



Yes.



I don't think so. I think he was trained to react that way when he thinks someone is reaching for a gun after being instructed not to.

Updated Monday, June 26, 2017, 11:30 p.m. EDT: Commerce, Texas, Police Chief Kerry Crews has resigned and will be stepping into a new position as assistant to the city manager, a position he created with City Manager Darrek Ferrell, Dallas News reports.

Commerce Mayor Wyman Williams read Crews’ resignation letter during the City Council meeting Monday evening. In the letter, Crews insisted that he didn’t see race or gender when, while wearing his plainclothes, he detained and put his hands on Ponder.

If Crews is to be believed, he just saw a faceless, raceless, genderless mass of skin and bones who did not show him the proper deference that he felt his badge afforded him.

Ponder’s lack of deference—namely, knowing her rights—caused Crews to become “emotional” because it was the culmination of a rough few years, his resignation letter read.



Be clear: Crews’ being allowed to create a special role to take the place of his police chief position looks nothing like justice. White, male nepotism ensured that Crews was able to brush the dirt off of his shoulders and keep it moving. It is this same good ol’ boys’ club that caused him to come to the rescue of his friend Michael Beane, the member of the Commerce Independent School District board of trustees who did, in fact, follow Ponder into a Walmart’s parking lot after illegally teaching his daughter to drive, and then call Ponder a “black bitch.”

This is why Ponder spent a night in jail and Beane’s name remained protected information even though he both instigated and exacerbated the incident.

This is what they do; they don their (victim)hoods and they look out for each other no matter how obscene the display of power, privilege and violence—institutional and otherwise—may be.

Earlier:

Carmen Ponder was verbally assaulted by one white man and then physically detained by another white man, all because the former called her a “black bitch” and Ponder had the audacity to believe that she’s a free human being.

Article preview thumbnail
Texas Police Chief Under Investigation for Arresting Black Pageant Winner and Allegedly Calling Her…
Updated Friday, May 26, 2017, 4:41 p.m. EDT:

Read more
She had the audacity to believe that a white man in plainclothes—who is friends with a white supremacist, slur-wielding “motorist”—needed to be properly identified before she accepted the notion of his authority. She had the nerve to laugh at how transparently and pathetically racist those two white men clearly were as they worked in tandem to make her appear to be the angry, emotional, belligerent black woman.

The cellphone footage is clear.



Commerce, Texas, Police Chief Kerry Crews and a man identified by Ponder’s attorney, Lee Merritt, as Michael Beane, a member of the Commerce Independent School District board of trustees, deployed the power vested in them by virtue of their whiteness, by virtue of their maleness and by virtue of a state that loves etching trauma into the bones of black people to put Ponder in her place.



As previously reported by The Root, Ponder initially believed that Crews shouted the racist and gendered slur at her after she signaled and passed him on the road as he illegally taught his 14-year-old daughter how to drive. The motorist, however, turned out to be Beane.

Crews, off-duty and in plainclothes, just decided to provide backup for Beane by, as the footage shows, accosting Ponder, refusing to allow her to exit a Walmart and ultimately ordering an officer—who was actually on duty—to arrest her on charges of evading arrest after saying repeatedly that she was not being arrested, just detained.

A law firm retained by the city of Commerce to defend against Ponder’s claims of race-based discrimination determined that Crews had not called her a “black bitch,” but said absolutely nothing about the circumstances surrounding Ponder’s arrest, nor the arrest itself. Discrimination is not just verbal; it is systemic and intentional—and in this case, as in many others, it is obvious.

Crews remains on administrative duty because of his role in Ponder’s detainment and ultimate arrest. The Commerce City Council is holding a special session Monday evening to “deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal” of Crews.

Black women, and the many ways in which state violence specifically harms black women, are front and center in the Movement for Black Lives for myriad reasons; Ponder’s experience is but a recent example.

She could have easily been Marlene Pinnock or Ersula Ore. She could have been Charleena Lyles; she could have been Sandra Bland—and the silence by too many people would have been just as loud.

In the meantime, the city of Commerce continues to rally behind Crews. Beane, if the video is any indication, has opted for the slightly nervous “Gee golly, I’m harmless and hate all this fuss” look of privileged, country white boys who understand that all they have to do is just be and everything will be all whiteright.

http://www.theroot.com/carmen-ponder-detained-manhandled-by-commerce-texas-1796430978?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=The_Root_facebook

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40421845

Damn, that's some scary, infuriating stuff.

McG and Finn are two exceptions who have tried to remain circumspect about some of these cases, but isn't it amazing that even in the face of clear evidence of police misconduct, some here will always automatically jump to the defense of the police and assume the guilt of the people getting assaulted and killed?

It is hardly misconduct for police officers to defend themselves when BLM goons take PCP and try to murder them.

There are no depths below such creatures won't sink. They revel in their depraved inhumanity.

Awful, completely awful, and really no surprise

Police officers defending themselves from PCP-addled murdering thugs is bad?

Some good news today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/18/prosecutors-wont-seek-third-trial-for-former-ohio-police-officer-who-shot-samuel-dubose/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40651470<br />

Well, at least this is one unjust police killing that will result in the murderer being brought to justice. The victim is a pretty young blonde and the perp is a black man.

I understand the bitter irony here, but I'm sure you hope that if the cop is guilty he will be punished accordingly.

It's a strange case, irrespective of the color of skin.

The cop fired his gun across his partner and through the door of the car to shoot the victim. That's very unusual and all by itself probably violated a half dozen dept rules.

The shooting cop has only been on the force for a couple of years and has already had three complaints filed against him. The third was within a couple of months of this incident.

The woman who was shot is the one who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault. Presumably the cops knew of the nature of the report if not that this woman was the person who phoned it in. Arriving at the scene and finding a woman, it's hard to imagine either cop thought "There's the perp!"

The shooting cop is indeed a black man, and he is also a Somalian immigrant of the Islamic faith.

I think that when all is said and done we are going to find out that this guy should never have been accepted into the police force but that someone high up thought it was a good idea to add Somalians to the force and so he was given the benefit of the doubt.

I get why the Australian government finds this of concern/interest. Aside from having some obligation to an Australian national in a foreign land, I'm sure this story was all over the Australian News and the government wants to be seen as doing something. I agree that they very likely have nothing to worry about justice not being done here. I suppose the cop could have a legitimate explanation for his actions, and obviously nothing will happen to him without due process, but it will take an extremely pro-police or entirely Somalian-American jury to let a Somalian Muslim cop who is guilty off.

It's will be a shame if a swift and just outcome of this case that ends with the conviction of the cop is seen as anything other than a swift and just outcome, but of course it will be in some quarters, and we will be left to speculate how it might have turned out if the victim was a young black man. I don't think the officer's skin color will have any influence on his fate, but his religion and heritage might, and if it does it will likely not be a positive influence...but it could be.

Do you agree that it is more likely to be a swift conviction than if the victim was a young black man and the shooter was a white cop? It's a pretty straightforward question, so I would greatly appreciate a short answer.

You're living in a fantasy world, time and time again racist murderers, not just police, get let off.

The question can't be answered simply with a "Yes" or "No." Sorry if that's not to your satisfaction

If the facts and circumstances were exactly the same except the victim was a young black man and the cop was white. I don't think there would be a material difference in the time it would take to achieve a conviction.

I don't think the race of the police in these shootings is a major factor, and unless it turns out that the victim made some gesture that could be interpreted as menacing, I don't think that if she had been a young black man it would make a material difference.

The cop who recently got off for shooting the black man in his car who had a gun but wasn't pointing it at the officer or even holding it, was able to convince the jury he had reason to fear for his life. As I've written I don't think he should have been found not guilty, but I don't think that jury or juries in general are inclined to dismiss any and all shootings of young black men by cops (regardless of the cop's race). They do, though, seem to be inclined to give cops every single benefit of the doubt though. Unless additional facts develop in this case I don't see that there is anything at all to doubt and it would the same if the victim were black.

If there is more to this story that I'm aware of and the cop can make any even a flimsy case that he felt he and his partner were threatened, if it is truly only a flimsy one, then I think he will still be convicted. Unfortunately though, I am nowhere near as confident that would be the case if a young black man had been the victim, and I'm afraid that I wouldn't be shocked if the officer was found not guilty.

How do you think officers should react if they have reason to believe a gun is present in a traffic stop, the officer clearly tells the driver not to reach for the gun or pull it out, the driver starts reaching for something, the officer repeats with increasing urgency his commands to not reach for it or pull it out, and the driver continues reaching and starts to pull an unknown object out?