Printable View
I haven't been to any of the Police killing protests yet (have you?) though I have read many of the articles. I'm still not seeing a clear message on how to proceed regarding:
1) What should be done about the killing of Andy Lopez by Deputy Erick Gelhaus? Is anybody else culpable? What should be done for the family?
And perhaps yet more importantly,
2) What can be done to prevent this from happening again?
Unfortunately the very nature of the police job tends to attract people who like the excitement of possible violence on a daily basis and who like to exercise dominance and authority over others. It must be hard to find and recruit people with such characteristics who are also kind and gentle. Would you be able to handle the job? I sure couldn't! I think all we can do is struggle to strengthen civilian control and oversight over the police, and have zero tolerance for police murders.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I think the manufacturer who made a toy to look like the real thing has some culpability.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
This is indeed a difficult situation ... the police are trained to respond quickly to any suggestion of a weapon for good reason ... they must at all times protect themselves and the community ... my uncle was cop so I'm a bit biased about this ... we all said a prayer of thanks when he would return from the job in one piece ...
I think that community oversight is very important ... also, I wonder if there is some kind of police instruction and protocol associated with this situation? ... does anyone know? ... if not, there should be ... any suspect should be given a few seconds to respond to a police prompt unless the weapon is actually pointed at another human being ...
More than anything, I'm hoping that this tragedy serves as a wake-up call to parents out there ... if you're going to provide realistic weaponry toys to your children, then please restrict their use of such to fenced backyards where they are safe from this kind of misunderstanding ...
I am not in favor of these toys ... period. By providing them to our boys ( or girls ) we are desensitizing them in destructive ways and continuing the global problem of violence and murder as a solution to our disagreements and differences. I'd like to see these weaponry toys banned from the face of the earth ... seriously ...
Better that we teach our children to channel their aggression by competing in healthy activities like sports and academic excellence ... there are countless ways to grow a strong ego outside of the realm of senseless violence ...
While I take your point, I think that child play involving the actions of running around, stalking, hiding, ambushing, and mock attacking involve deep primal, animal instincts that are not in themselves a bad thing at all. The problem is not this kind of play, the problems stem from actual anger fomented by mistreatment in the family, school, and neighborhood. I used to enjoy this kind of play, and would probably enjoy it now (it's really fun!), but I have no desire whatsoever to hurt anybody.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Yes, you're right ... even as a girl I enjoyed that sort of thing ... we used to make forts and throw things at our opponents from them ... great fun and injuries were minor ....
It's not the actions that I object to ... it's the providing of realistic replica guns and assault weapons .... this seems to send a message to the child that it's ok to use one of these things ... what happened to sling shots, and stick swords, and water balloons? ... ok, perhaps I'm dating myself but you get the idea ....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
I don't know how any one else feels but I think that since military people have the mindset of shooting first before taking that little moment, no military personnel should be allowed into law enforcement. I know a lot of cops have military backgrounds and probably have done an OK job but I am just thinking that citizens, ordinary citizens, should take police training and that might curb a lot of violence on either end. Police are usually trained to think before shooting; military people are not.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
It's interesting to me that we have ratings on movies because of violence, product safety recalls due to small parts that can be choking hazards, seat belt/helmet laws, etc. etc. etc. - and yet we give the nod to "toy" AK-47's and the like. God Bless America!!!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dominus:
I totally sympathize with your point! But, again, where are we going to find all these people who did not choose to get in the military, yet desire to enter a profession in which they must be prepared on a daily basis to order people around, dominate them physically, and deal with mean, scary, and desperate people who hate them and carry weapons?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by forveterans49:
If it's legal to manufacture, then I can't see how the manufacturer could be found guilty. Especially since the ridiculous orange tip was "altered" (removed)...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dominus:
It will be interesting to see what the police report will say when their "investigation" is finished. If the conclusion is that Gelhaus gets off the hook because the toy looked like the real thing, then we need legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of toy guns that imitate too closely true firearms.
I agree this this message. A Military mindset is very different from a civilian mindset. Remember that the abu grave (sp) scandal was brought to light by an individual serving in the military who was trained as a civilian police officer in Maryland, I think.
They use stun guns to capture large bears that come too close to urban areas, and transport these bears to other places. Why can't this process be used with humans instead of deadly force?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by forveterans49:
The Peace & Justice Center posted this on FaceBook today ... I thought that it was worth sharing ...
"Our statement - so many things to think about, so much to do - a role for everyone:
“He shouldn't have been carrying that replica of an AK-47.” Sounds just like, “She shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt,” doesn't it? Blame the victim.
“He was just a child!” doesn't factor in that children now shoot and kill.
Maybe this is more complicated than either reaction.
Andy Lopez was growing up in a country that was sending him some very conflicting messages. This is a gun worshipping country. This is a country which believes strongly in violent solutions. The Santa Rosa Police Department encouraged small children to play with real weapons in a local park. The culture assigns god-like status to its law enforcement and military. Capitalism says that we can't infringe on the rights of a company to sell replica “toys.” Parents dress their babies in camo! How can we then turn to a young boy and tell him he's not supposed to be influenced by this culture? You really can't have it both ways.
And what is law enforcement supposed to do in the face of children who kill? I'd first suggest that we understand that a child with intent to kill (this was not Andy) is a child in despair. Our first instinct should be to save that child, not eliminate him! Our first instinct should be to create a world in which such despair never takes hold. Shoot to kill, ask questions later does not work. This has not always been law enforcement policy, but gradually we have become convinced that the safety of a deputy/police/soldier is more important than anything else. It hasn't always been that way. It is time for some creative problem-solving by law enforcement, working with lots of community input. Yes, it's more difficult than just picking up a gun and firing. No solution will be perfect. But really, the current policy is a disaster!
After WWII, the Defense Department conducted a study which concluded that 80% of soldiers refuse to kill, even at risk to themselves. Soldier training was changed so that now 80% will kill. Part of this change includes militarizing and desensitizing civilians – with predictable results, including dead innocent children.
As for Gelhaus, the deputy who killed Andy? Hold him responsible, all the while understanding that he suffers from a culturally-induced PTSD, not just the probable PTSD he suffers from serving in Iraq. And then hold our law enforcement accountable for their policies. And then hold our federal government responsible (the political party of the president is irrelevant here) for the ongoing militarization of local law enforcement. And hold our rich and corporate elite responsible for insisting upon a militarized mechanism for keeping us under control.
We've heard much about shared responsibility. His parents should have done this, Andy should have known that, the gun manufacturers shouldn't do this, but in the end, the only one with the power to kill was the deputy (with the blessings of top-down power behind him). The ultimate responsibility lies with the one with the power to take - or not take - a life.
We all have a role to play here. The cultural change that is required for a safer society - where safety is created by a more peaceful people demanding their own power, rather than by more law enforcement – will require all of us. It's long past time to get to work.
And we are grateful for the fact that the Lopez family has found such overwhelming support from the community and we are in awe of their ability to be so present within that community in their time of great sorrow."
I think this focus on overly realistic toy guns is a bit of a red herring. It seems to me that the fundamental issues in this case are
(1) Did the boy drop his toy gun when the cops told him to? Did he just continue to hold it? Did he actually raise his toy gun and point it at them (this seems extremely unlikely)? How much time did the boy have to follow police orders and drop his toy gun before Gelhaus drilled him?
(2) Why did Gelhaus find it necessary to drill this boy with seven bullets, virtually assuring his death? Did Gelhaus have that little confidence in his marksmanship? If so, he should have either been required to undergo more practice, or--after so many years on the force with such inadequate skill--been fired or demoted to desk duty.
(3) In their daily rounds through the neighborhoods how often do the police see people walking around openly carrying rifles? Were the police unaware of the current fad for these realistic toy rifles?
In sum, it seems to me that there could only be one justification for a police person ever to shoot someone, not to mention empty their gun at them: that person is either pointing a gun at them or appears to be in the process of doing so.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Notthing, absolutely nothing will change, and it can, and it will happen again....because the powers that be in this county, (i.e. Board of supervisors, city council) are too afraid, too intimidated, to bought off, to demand that the police and sheriff departments be overhauled when it comes to training!!! They should demand...that those in charge of those departments to "step down" because they are doing a horrible job protecting its citizens!! It's sick, disgusting, and shameful!!! The arrogant bastards!!! Killing our children!!! They need to be stopped by taking to the streets and peacefully demanding all of their resignations!! Because, no one is protecting us anymore!!!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by barry:
Thank you for sharing this intelligent, insightful and realstic statement.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
I think that water balloons are quite different from stick swords or sling shots (a rock can seriously injury someone's eye). I remember my son at 8 yrs. old, getting hit in the head with a rock from a sling shot. He came in the house with blood streaming down his face. He had to have several stitches. I'm just glad it missed his eye.
I'm not condoning replica guns, but if they don't actually shoot projectiles, they may be safer than a sling shot. I grew up in the Roy Rogers, Annie Oakly, John Wayne era, and these gun slingers were our "heros". We are affected by what we see, and learn by direct and indirect messages.
I've never been attracted to actually throwing anything that might hurt another person. I do remember water balloon fights, and rare snow ball throwing, and even later in my 40's, while living in Hawaii, I engaged in throwing rotten star fruit, after being hit with, one while hiking with 3 other adults.
As a child, I lived in a violent home, although this didn't make me a violent person. Instead, it created a heightened state of awareness and fear because I never knew when it was coming. Although, I do recall an incident when I was 6 years old. My mother had let a strange man in the house. I sensed danger, and when he was pre-occupied, I grabbed a hammer, claw end out. I then threatened him with it, and fortunately he left. He could have easily overtaken me, but he wasn't armed, and may have realized that he'd have my mother on his back.
There were a few other times when I got into actual fist fights, as a means of protecting myself from taunting or phyical harm from other children my age. Otherwise I was a timid loner, with a strong survival instinct.
I left home at 12 because I could see that if I stayed my survival was at stake. I was placed in a large facility for kids from dysfunctional familes, that was run by nuns. It was there I learned that the discipline for not obeying rules was never physical. Instead, the nuns used the leverage of taking away privileges, which I ultimately used with my own sons.
I'm very thankful to have had their wise example, so I could learn another way. Many children never get this opportunity, and live under the shadow of violence in their home, and the glamorization in every type of media. My heart goes out to these children who become desensitized, and commit their own violence to humans and animals, then grow into violent adults.
I know this is just one aspect of this topic, and realize that violence as self defense is part of our survival mechanism. Sometimes it comes down to "me or them". We do rely on the police to defend us, and their training involves certain proceedures, as does the military. They are in a powerful position, with lethal weapons, along with a baseline mentality required by the job. They see the worst of humanity on a daily basis, and put their lives on the line. This has a mental and emotional effect, which creates tragic suffering.
Children need to be taught about these realities, and ways that certain behaviors can lead to loss of their lives. Sometimes this becomes apparent to children early on in some cultures, because they witness injury and death from a police weapon.
Awareness of any potential danger which can result from our behavior is key to our survival.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Maybe because Bears are not carrying guns?
I don't know about you, but I would not want to attempt to get close enough to a person carrying a gun to use a stun gun on them. If the gun was real and you missed...you'd be dead, or they might shoot you before you got close enough.
If you would take that chance, maybe you should apply for the job.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Tinkerbell:
We should never have a military attitude about policing our community. This is a direction taken by the police department that should never have been allowed. By treating our community as a war zone, and hiring experts from the military to patrol our towns, we create more violence. This kind of policy looks really good to some elements of the get hard on crime folks, but the reality is that this is our home, and these are our children, even the ones in trouble deserve a police force that is an intelligent and integrated part of the community that it serves. These communities do not deserve an occupational force and it is just plain stupid to let this kind of thing continue.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
He does not have ptsd, he is a trained military person, conditioned to respond lethally, no matter what. He is a member of an occupying force.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
i wrote the following note to Pat Thurston on KGO after listening to her program this weekend...it sums up how i feel...but i have so many feelings and thoughts every day about Andy Lopez and his murder.....everyone has insightful stuff to share too...but are we not preaching to the choir??...the mindset of so many hard liners baffles me and i don't know how we can move their hearts.......
I was listening to the show about Andy Lopez…I could not call in…I am a mother too…I was driving home from work….too distraught to make a call…but for what it's worth…what happened to that poor boy was so WRONG on so many levels…
It's shocking, it's shameful….mostly, because I believe the police And the Sheriff's deputies in this county are so out of control….ill trained and they act as if they live in some damn war zone….I Absolutely believe that the cop who shot him should go to jail….
It was a mistake that NEVER should have happened….and it happened because of arrogance, and the inability to be brave and courageous in his job, instead he acted like he was coming up on some crazy situation…he was out of control…
Let's not forget that this happened at 3pm in the afternoon….REALLY!!
It's inexcusable, ruthless and this is one more example of the police not acting to protect us but rather keep us in fear….
I hope he is brought down….and NEVER gets to be a cop, EVER again….
He is nuts….and the police department knows it….the public knows it!! Let's not pretend any longer
I hope there are many many more demonstrations for Andy….let's not forget…it can and it WILL happen again…until this department is reigned in!!!
Sincerely,
Marni
Forestville
Yes, you're right Shandi, .... we were never allowed to use rocks or large sticks in our arsenal as kids, so I didn't mean to suggest that type of toy ...
Perhaps this tragedy will prompt parents to carefully consider toys of aggression and the implications of those choices ... often, one never thinks of these things until something dramatic happens ... I don't think that fake guns should be on that list for obvious reasons ... beyond the danger of this particular situation, it just sends the wrong message ... yes, I know that we all grew up watching westerns and war movies, but look at the results of all of that ... endless wars and all of our money going to weaponry ... it's time to change the channel ... our very survival as a planet depends on it .... we can have healthy aggression and skill without weaponry and bloodshed ...
I'm sorry to hear of your turbulent background ... I grew up in a single mother household and survival issues overshadowed all other concerns ... I tried not to get hurt out in the streets because then my mother would have to deal with it and she had way too much to deal with as it was ... I saw no violence and I was completely sheltered ... this was good and bad ...
My uncle, the cop, came off like a real tough guy ... he always gave me a "look" to keep me in line ... when I was a teenager he'd follow me in his cop car to keep an eye on me ... when he died, my aunt told me about his first day on the job ... he came home crying and wanted to quit ... he was the first man to respond to a brutal car accident and it was his job to find a young girl's detached head ... sorry to be so graphic, but I did want to agree with your statement about cops seeing the worst of life ... this is very true ...
Still, there must be protocol involved ... you don't do any job without rehearsing ... carrying a lethal weapon carries a weight of responsibility .... and it does seem like our police force is changing and becoming more militarized ... we must not allow the concept of "shoot now and ask questions later" to become the status quo ... I wonder why this is happening to our police as there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Well said!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Michelle Noe:
In response to Barry's questions, I have been to many of the events surrounding the murder of Andy and will go again this afternoon for the People's Tribunal at Julliard Park from 1 to 5 p.m.
I consider this incident to be the most important local thing that has happened in Sonoma County since I moved here over 20 years ago. It gives us a chance to change the Standard Operating Procedures, or SOPs as we called them in the military. Because of the continuing non-violent response of the Latino community and their allies, we may finally have a chance to arrest, jail, and prosecute deputy Erick Gelhaus for taking what he learned in Iraq into a Latino working class neighborhood and kill yet another brown-skinned person, thus sending a message to other such militarized cops. Unless, of course, that he flees the country as the demand for justice grows. He and his military skills would certainly be welcomed in certain other countries.
I expect the investigating SR Police Dept. to whitewash this, as if they were fox guarding the chicken coops and continuing to treat some local people as "the enemy." The civil lawsuit in federal court may be a victory for the family, and its attorney says that the payment that the County has to make may be more than the $24 million he won, in trial, against the LA police for one shot--not 7 in Andy's case--that paralyzed but not kill that boy.
As to Barry's second question, let's celebrate Veterans Day today, since only some vets, like Gelhaus, come home and send a hail of bullets into a boy's body. We can over-haul the procedures and leadership of the Sheriff's Office, voting Sheriff Freitas out next year. There are many good things that good people can do to prevent this from happening again.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I don't have any helpful comments for Q1. But for Q2 we can start by raising the IQ floor & ceiling for new cadets. ie: no more hiring dumb cops. Remove the "fear loophole".; Meaning someone actually has to shoot at them before they can draw their gun. We can't continue to allow officers to say "I was afraid" so I fired my weapon.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
So, in your example, all criminals would get one free shot at a cop before the cop could draw his gun? That's crazy!
The criminal could walk up to the cop, point his gun, take careful aim, and blow the cop away with a perfectly aimed head shot. I could see all cops quitting their jobs the day THAT rule went into affect.
Then who ya gona call?
(surely you must realize this?)
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Conly:
Beautiful letter (Guest Commentary) to the Times and News, Shepherd! I finally got time to read the paper last night.....
Sara
Tom, I understand that there are extreme examples in both our statements. But the current MO of the police seems to be “shoot first and ask questions later”. The result of that is that children, the mentally/emotionally disabled and even incapacitated suspects are killed.
The police (theoretically) are here to protect and serve the public. It is part of their job to take the risk of their personal safety to protect US the people. Not kill US because they are “afraid” for their own safety.
Better psychological screening, better training in unarmed combat, higher IQ floor & ceiling for cadets;I could go on till my fingers bleed.
As to “who ya gona call”, certainly Not the police. They arrive after the fact. At 52yrs. I've been mugged once but I've been harassed by cops more times than I can count. I do not trust them. And I think it is a flaw in the Whole system that they never get prosecuted/convicted for wrongful death because they wear blue & a badge.
So I will stick to requiring Higher IQ's and not letting them get off with murder.
I don't want to get shot reaching for my wallet. How about you?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
Precisely. Thank you.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Conly:
by the way, the last few weeks of the Bohemian have had really well-thought-out reader commentaries (I don't remember the newspaper jargon, but they're essentially editorials submitted by readers, not their staff). Sorry I'm too lazy to track down links...
Well, expecting them to "take the risk of personal safety" Is one thing, but I would never expect them to let someone take the first shot before responding.
I agree with "better psychological screening, better training in unarmed combat and higher IQ", but they have to be able to defend themselves and if they are punching, kicking or shooting... someone could get killed. Mistakes are going to happen, that is just an unfortunate fact of life.
I am a bit older than you, and I have had to call the police more than a few times too. Mostly there was nothing they could do after a theft or burglary but they have also been helpful. I would not hesitate to call the police again if I needed them.
I have also been hassled by police officers, but it was always because I was doing something stupid, suspicious or illegal. They aren't always nice and friendly in such circumstances, as they are trained to be aggressive and take command of situations. I also found that they always gave me a hard look when I had long hair... as did all the store owners.
Didn't your parents have "the talk" with you? Be respectful, Keep your hands in plain sight at all times and don't make any quick moves, etc... You'll be fine.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Conly:
fine, I agree it's silly to have hard & fast "no shoot till they shoot" rules. The point of agreement should be that we've gone overboard in allowing extreme lethal force before the nature of the threat is well established. I don't care to debate whether eight shots is too many, but one or two would have been good.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
However, we don't get to pick a happy land where no-one is going to be hurt if we just set correct policies. There will be errors; under current policy those errors are more likely to result in dead civilians than in dead officers. Both are tragedies, I think that's not in question. This is not to suggest we shouldn't pursue policies that result in fewer situations where deadly force is used. But it seems that in Sonoma, and in the country as a whole, the balance is off and too many civilians end up dead.
Many seem to feel that assigning some blame to the dead civilian helps justify a policy that increases the officer's safety, which is why so many of these debates include minute examination of the behavior of the deceased. Others look for evidence of some wrongdoing on the officer's part, as if it were possible to avoid any police wrongdoing would protect more civilian lives. But the simplest way to address the deadliness of so many police encounters is to train the officers to hold fire longer.
The officer in the most recent instance made it clear that his training was to respond quickly and forcefully so as to protect the officer's safety. If we want these situations to happen less frequently, we're going to have to insist that police accept even higher risk than they currently do. I respect them for taking on a risky job, it's not that I'm trivializing the seriousness of the threats they occasionally face, but I'm not going to shy away from what criticism of their actions really implies. I think those who do criticize the officers involved in the shootings without acknowledging that they're also asking every officer to accept more risk in their lives aren't taking responsibility for their views.
And sure, I grew up being careful to not look dangerous around cops too. I agree it's smart. But that doesn't mean it should be considered everyone's responsibility either - pushing the responsibility of appearing harmless on to the populace at large isn't the answer.
I would like to throw into the mix here as we continue to debate the murder of Andy Lopez...i ask all participating to take the time to go to Huffington Post today and read the article "Judge to Iraq Vet: "your service makes you a threat" or go to TED and listen to "life after Iraq"....this man gives us all some insight and pause to reflect on what sort of person comes back from War and who we might be unleashing on our communities....It is indeed, so sad a commentary on our inability, and unwillingness to understand the deep problems Vets face after they have faced the unspeakable....
I believe Eric Gelhaus is guilty of a terrible crime, never the less, he too is a victim....as he came home and was rewarded by the Santa Rosa Sheriff's Department, and given a job...when he probably was a most unstable man....he was to put it frankly, NUTS....and apparently, that didn't matter much to the Sheriff Department...i lay a lot of the blame on them!!
We are such a sick society, as we debate what is lethal force, extreme force, acceptable force, etc....and it does not even take into account the mindset of the individual who perceives what a threat might be...real or imagined....Gelhaus was a trainer...geez....if he was the trainer, we really all are in for a long, sad wait for justice....because he is the person they consider sane enough to make a judgment about whether to kill or not to kill....Lordy, help us all....
He was a Vet who was rewarded for killing, comes home, and is supposed to distinguish who he should or should not kill....i just don't believe he was sane enough to make this sort of call....but The Sheriff went right ahead and hired him!!.....this act took place, in broad daylight, a child (could he not EVEN judge that?), and in an area with NO obstruction whatsoever, a wide open area...and still, he shoots this child....not a mistake!! this is WHAT he was trained to do...shoot, kill, and ask questions later, or don't even ask questions at all....it makes me livid but what are we to demand of our leaders, when they don't even know how to lead?.....enough said....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
that's not really an accurate perspective on this situation. It assumes that the safe society you wish we had is 'normal'. It's not. There's a lot of violence here too, though it is way more extreme where Gelhaus served in the military. You can't just call someone who's had experiences with violence that colors their reactions insane. I heard someone with a military background use a great phrase - he said his reactions were 'maladaptive'. As a society we must define what reactions we expect and train people till these are second nature. The problem isn't that Gelhaus would have failed that training - it was in how he defined what adaptive behavior and attitudes were.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
Well said Beshiva! There should not only be mental screening prior to hire, but consistently throughout the term of career, being as the job of a police officer is high stress due to the life risk, (yes I would ask those who chose this job to take higher risks for their lives and take responsibility for that, as in ~ it's a job to protect the people (not kill them)).
It's my belief that police officers, as protectors of the peace / of the civilians should be expecting to take higher risk with their lives AND they should be consistently required to regularly engage in therapeutic counseling or support groups as well as have quarterly or other regular mental stability evaluations. Person's with life experiences on the front lines of modern wars, I believe, once home as civilians, should not have to be put in situations where they must use weapons; there is far too much instance of diagnosed and undiagnosed post traumatic stress syndrome in soldiers of war that result in violent acts later in civilian society. Google it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
Hello Richard,
To answer this point, I'd say that there are plenty of heroes out there who did not want to join the military because they didn't believe in that - but they do believe in keeping the peace and risking their lives for it. Just think, instead of joining the "military" as an option for young people to get training, money, and a career, they could join the police force and it would be a different kind of experience that included psychotherapy, Aikido / Zen ideas for dealing with confrontation, and perhaps better designed bullet proof clothing.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
THIS is exactly why I made such a big deal a few years back, here on Wacco, when an officer questioned my son via a stranger assuming he was a suspect to a vandalism to his home - the way that man had the power to call the cops on my son and have him questioned scared the heck out of me with the likes of how violent cops have become. I feared for his physical safety.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
I do not know the "RIGHT ANSWER" I do not think there is one, I think the right questions are more important.
WHY is there a MILITARIZATION going on with our police services and what can we do about it.??
WHY 40 storm troopers in full riot gear for a protest that is mostly children?
WOULD THIS HAPPEN in OUR WHITE neighborhood?
WHY is there no protest at Big Five Sports?
WHY was a friend of mine just arrested for DUI by one of the 12 NEW highway patrol officers,he has "the look" from years of crazy living in the 60's but he is a gentle and polite and decent man,he was knocked to the ground in the jail,bleeding from handcuffs and his eye hemorrhaged from impact with the floor.(two days ago). they detained him for 8 hours even though someone payed his bail immediately. This is more Outrageous behavior.
why does a Casino mean we need 18 more cops?
Why did the sheriff's helicopters run full time for 6 days (at $1000 an hour) and god knows what the overtime costs for night time.
I don't know about you and your comfort levels,but I am renewing my passport while I still can.
Yes the toy gun is an issue but it is not THE issue and does not really belong in this conversation.
Racism, Irrational violence,and Militarism is what I see here.
Many police departments do use stun guns. I don't know about SoCoSD, though. But many do. An officer must decide which weapon is appropriate at that moment. If he has a stun gun, he also has a real gun. This officer saw what appeared to be a teen with a fully automatic assault rifle. Stun guns require the cop be within close range. A stun gun may have been a poor choice, given the perceived danger (if the toy had been a real gun) and the range.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Tinkerbell:
I don't recall the exact range, but police stun guns shoot electrodes about 30feet or so I think, that embed in the skin on contact, are connected via thin wires to the gun, and thus deliver adebilitating shock. Much like shooting a gun, but definitely a limited range, and they require some level of marksmanship/accuracy.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
1) also - what was the range/distance from the Deputies' car to Andy? And, why didn't the cops stay in their car at a distance and tell Andy to comply over their PA/bullhorn that all cop cars have?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
2) Cops are trained to fire 3-shot bursts, not empty their gun. Seems strange that Gelhaus wouldn't have fired a burst and paused to reassess.
3) "current" fad? When I was a kid in the 70's & 80's in Santa Rosa, I really, really wanted some cool replica toy guns. A couple friends had them. Never got any. But it's hardly a current fad. They've been around for ages. What we did use to "play guns" were laser tag guns and paint-ball guns, and high-powered SQUIRT (yes water) guns. None of which resembled real guns in any real way.
Stun guns have become the favorite toy of sadistic police! They create instant agony without leaving telltale marks on your body.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by seenhear:
don't just pin this on the police... lots of people seem to find them useful.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
Quote:
Bears fan John Grant made an appearance in Dodge County Circuit Court Tuesday, one day after using an electric stun gun on his wife Nicole, a Packers fan — to settle what he said was a bet on the result of Monday Night Football. John and Nicole Grant, from Illinois, were in a Mayville, Wisconsin, bar Monday night to watch the game between the Packers and Bears. John said that his wife agreed to a bet that would allow him to use a stun gun on her should the Packers lose, according to fdlreporter.com. Following the Bears’ victory, Nicole Grant called police from a nearby bowling alley, after John Grant had shocked her with the taser three times.
Those high-powered squirt guns sound great! Especially in hot weather! We didn't have such technologically sophisticated gadgets in my primitive youth.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by seenhear:
Oy!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Uhm, okay... what's your point? Still better than a fatal gunshot wound, no? And they do leave marks on the body.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by forveterans49:
If military people were not able to graduate from the military to law enforcement when their tours of duty are finished, young people contemplating careers in the military would lose one of the primary reasons for gaining that expertise, and the armed services would lose a primary selling point to entice young people into military service. How's that for a dilemma?
Taking this mindset, it would seem logical for law enforcement to kill or completely disable any person who might have on his/her person the means to kill the law enforcement person. Isn't there an inherent risk built in to law enforcement. Or is it really "Shoot first and ask questions later"?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
The point is that a sadistically inclined cop can feel freer to torture someone with a stun gun than to take the extreme measure of shooting them and having to explain why.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by seenhear:
I am originally from Bakersfield in Kern County, CA (which is the main setting in the book "Mean Justice"). I picketed the BPD re: my son's violent arrest a few years ago. (He was on the ground in handcuffs being jeered at and the several cops that were standing around repeatedly instructed the dog to bite him, almost tearing part of his ear off.)Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
To me the answer is - No Off-Camera Police. Period.
Also, thorough police training in ethics and how to recognize and respond to a disabled individual (whether suspected of a crime or not.) There should be an entrance exam designed to weed out racists, abusers and other unfit persons from public service duty.
I agree that it would help if police were trained in the way you expressed, and if cameras were on every police car.
As far as weeding out racists, abusers, and otherwise unfit people, that might be a tough one, only because many applicants who apply to be on the force may have these characteristics. This is a legal way to express hatred, and domination tendencies.
I wonder what percentage of applicants really join to "protect and serve" I've only known 2 cops in my lifetime, and both had undesirable personal characteristics. Did this come from seeing the worst of humanity, or did they have these traits already?
I don't actually know any highly conscious people who have any desire for a career in the PD or the military. From my pespective, these states of mind seem to be polar opposites.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
Roland, what you have said here does not make sense to me. I was responding to someone who said "They use stun guns to capture large bears that come too close to urban areas, and transport these bears to other places. Why can't this process be used with humans instead of deadly force?", and I said "because Bears don't carry guns".
My point was that a Bear is not going to point a gun at a policeman and threaten their life. A taser gun (not a stun gun!) would disable a Bear or person from a safe 35 feet away.
But If someone is threatening the life of a policeman with a gun, how would you have them react? Remember, they may only have a split second to make the decision that could save their own life.
Obviously, if the person is only 'in possession of the means to kill' but not threatening by pointing a gun or attacking with a knife, then deadly force would not be required nor should it be permitted in my opinion.
Lastly, yes, there is indeed an inherent risk built in to law enforcement and I'm sure the police try to limit that risk by training to react to any perceived threat appropriately. But no matter how good the training, there will always be accidents and mistakes. They are human, after all.
That brings us back to the topic of this thread.. What IS the right answer regarding Police Violence? I don't know, but I'm sure it is not 'Let the bad guy take the first shot'.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
Hi, Tom. I didn't make myself clear.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
How does the policeman make the decision that a given person in a given situation is threatening his/her life, and must be shot. Taking into consideration, I need to point out, that there's no such thing as a gunshot intended to stop a person the way a taser shot does; guns are to kill, period. Remember - for many years the London police carried no guns on duty unless they could demonstrate that they'd meet deadly force going into a situation. Remember that there'd be many more dead people right now if armed police shot everyone whose actions might be construed as life-threatening.
You say, basically, that possession of the "means to kill" is not enough to warrant deadly force from the police. If the police shoot a person for any reason or no reason, and find a firearm somewhere on or near the body, it's the work of an instant to drop that gun next to the dead hand and create a defense. It's also the work of an instant to take a handgun from the policeman's pocket and drop it on or near the body. That's called a "throw-down" - happens all the time.
"Attacking with a knife?" Again, the mere possession of a knife can be, and often is, construed as intent to use it. Or if I pull out my Swiss Army knife, hold it in my hand without opening the blade, and say, "Leave me alone or I'll use this," does that warrant a deadly reply or not? Am I not saying, "If you do leave me alone, I WON'T use this"?
Yes, there are always accidents and mistakes, some of which may result in the death of a law enforcer, some in the death of a private citizen. Which do you think happens most often?
I don't know the answer to police violence either, and I agree it isn't "Let the bad guy take the first shot." But is it "Let the good guy take the first shot"?
I think the model for police performance in our time has become, more and more, the performance of the U.S. military in the course of unwanted and unnecessary intrusions into the lives of people in foreign countries. For both police and military, this often looks like a crowd of heavily armed people clad in 21st Century body armor, kicking down the door of a house and running in screaming obscenities. Maybe neither you nor I have the answer to police, or military, violence, but we've sure got a hell of a problem, and it isn't going to go away unless SOMEONE finds some answers.
Roland, you make some good points.
I assume that a 'Good' Cop is trained to use deadly force in a life threatening situation only (theirs or someone else) and adheres to the training and rules rigidly. I believe they must be allowed to defend themselves (or you), which MAY mean they have to take the first shot.
'Bad' Cops will break the rules and must be caught and dealt with harshly!
London cops now carry guns I guess. It is a sign of how violent our times have become. I believe it is even worse here in the USA.
Perhaps all police should have to wear cameras that cannot be tampered with so that all cases can be reviewed.
Better training and higher standards of all kinds would help too.
I would never want a job like that... heck, just driving a car on our crazy roads is dangerous enough for me!
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
I agree with Garden Goddess 100%. Cop cams on whenever they are on duty.
AND in any investigation, a full, UNEDITED video of the events ought to be made public immediately, unless the subject of the video (NOT THE TAXPAYER FINANCED OFFICER ON DUTY) objects for reasons of privacy.
Imagine that. Truth in policing. Wy do we, the people, deserve any less?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
There ARE many more dead people right now BECAUSE armed police shot those whose actions might be construed as life-threatening to them.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
And the 2nd Amendment backs that up. Andy had an absolute right to be walking down the street with a long gun. The cop MAY have the right to ask questions, but what took place was murder by uniformed thug.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
Roland, this phrasing seems to miss the point entirely. Given that most of us (none governmental types) actually DO try to live our lives by the Golden Rule and the Non-Aggression Principle, the "bad guy" IS, BY DEFINITION, the one who takes the first shot. A badge and uniform does NOT automatically define "the good guy".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
Part of the answer is the election process, as Shepard pointed out elsewhere. Fire the officer, fire and/or refuse to (re)elect ANYBODY who covers up or tries to justify this behavior.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Roland Jacopetti:
Out in the general public, individual shunning and shaming would seem to be potentially effective. Look up pictures, learn to identify them, refuse to serve them, remind them as constantly as possible that they are low-life liars who SWORE AN OATH to protect and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have GONE BACK ON THEIR WORD now that they have locked in a paycheck and perqs at our expense.
I'd like to be able to ask the murderer exactly which part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was he protecting and defending when he decided to kill Andy.