OK, some history bits
-On this day in 1703, Daniel Defoe was placed in the pillory for seditious libel. The people seemingly approved of his work, because they pelted him with flowers. The English had all the fun back then it seems, but more recently, 1970 brought forth Black Tot Day, the last issueance of Navy Rum to the sailors of the Royal Navy. There was weeping and gnashing of teeth from Portsmouth to Singapore and Hong Kong.
-In 1789, the world lost Denis Diderot on this date. A French philosopher and critic, he was famous for many things but possibly most famous for saying:
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.He failed to point out that not all tyrants and autocrats need be kings, but that's a pretty good start anyway.
-On to the topic at hand -- In essence, cops, plus those speaking on their behalf, DAs, Police Chiefs, Police Internal Affairs Departments and other self-investigatory bodies, the Mayor, and amateur copologists all spout variants of the same line: "He disobeyed me, so I killed him.". A major difference is that those other than the cops themselves say variants of "He disobeyed the officer, who then had no choice but to kill him".
I told him to drop the knife and he didn't so I killed him
I told him to freeze and he tried to flee the scene, so I killed him
I told him to show me his hands and he didn't, so I killed him
I told him to get on the ground and he didn't, so I killed him
I told him to get out of the car and he didn't, so I killed him etc.
-There are exceptions, 2 of which come immediately to mind. One is the infamous "reaching for waistband" assertion first invented (and successfully used) by a cop in California's central valley who has the eternal gratitude and hero worship of police throughout the country as this has become the number one exculpatory assertion I thought he was reaching for his waistband, so I killed him. This is, however, a specific embellishment on the He disobeyed me so I killed him theme, because it invariably arises in a situation where the cop asserting it has confronted the victim and issued some order, command, directive or "request". What kind of "request" is grounds for instant immediate assassination of any who fail to comply with it for FSMs sake? (The other exception, utterly laughable as it may seem is the equally infamous but rarely used I thought it was my taser)
-Of course, they don't say killed, they say shot, but we have heard more than enough times that they are trained to shoot to kill, so by training, if nothing else (such as the overwhelming deathly fear of concealed hands that they claim comes over them at these times), the intent to kill is there, included in the act of shooting. If you re trained to shoot to kill, and you decide to shoot, then you have decided to kill. If you are trained to shoot to kill, and you intend to shoot, then you intend to kill. It is really that simple. They also fail to state that there is very often, possibly more often than not, pretty much insufficient time for the victim to comprehend and act upon their order, it is simply "freeze!", bang, dead about as fast as you can say it.
-Hence, they have become assassins, killing those who disobey them. What law grants them the power of summary execution? So the victim had a knife? Is that even a crime? It is certainly not a capital offence? When and how in the hell did the cops in this country acquire the power of summary execution of those suspected of reaching for their pockets? They have, in fact, become assassins, killing whenever and wherever the impulse strikes them. This is a sufficiently well known fact that it has led to people "swatting" their enemies or folks whom they otherwise would like to see murdered. Call the cops and send them to the victims home with the right kind of story and the victim dies. In a quasi recent swatting, the cops arrived at the victims house, the victim heard a noise and opened the door and they immediately shot him, claiming, of course, that he reached for his waistband. Because there were no cameras or witnesses to testify as to what really happened, that stands as a "fact" even though the epidemic of unarmed persons reaching for their waistband in the presence of hostile cops defies all probability, logic and reason. In this case, the DA with jurisdiction is going after the swatter for involuntary manslaughter, a seeming blatant admission that cops are trigger happy and prone to kill persons without reason and that this is so widely known as to border on established fact. ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suspect-in-fatal-swatting-call-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter/ ) It is a widely accepted defense against a charge of involuntary manslaughter that the death or killing that occurred was not due to the defendant's negligence or commission of some specific crime, but was a true accident. ( https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/involuntary-manslaughter/ ) To overcome such a defense, the DA would have to show that the murder of a person by the cops when you "swat" them to the victim's door is no accident, but situationally guaranteed. That's a pretty telling admission.
-It has come to my attention that various and sundry types are desirous of restoring the public's trust in cops, and in trying to find methods of doing so. The following link is to an article on trusting the police and contains lots of relevant data: https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-police-dont-deserve-your-trust-6d77687a8415 Combine all of this with the existence of causeless stop and search and stop and frisk (Terry stops etc.) as well as no knock warrants (kick your door in in the middle of the night without warning) and it is very difficult to keep the phrase "police state" from coming to mind. This is especially true because the Supremes seem to have further weakened a citizen's protections against retaliatory (violent) arrests and beatings as summary punishment for contempt of cop ( https://abovethelaw.com/2019/06/the-supreme-courts-new-rule-ensures-public-trust-in-law-enforcement-will-further-erode/ ) Worse yet, I have no remedy to propose. There is a campaign to film all cop v citizen interactions ("see something, film something"), but the police are constantly having their official reports and court testimony impeached and proven false by photo and film evidence and it never seems to make a damn bit of difference, so I can't see how awareness of being on film will change their behavior. Nonetheless, I guess it is the only weapon we have, so keep your cameras ready and download the ACLU app for filming and submitting film of cop on citizen violence for your state, assuming one exists for your state ( https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct ).
-Image is don't shoot
-Its an open thread so have at it. The floor is yours .
-Cross posted from caucus99percent.com