Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Dingdongs]

If I can tell you that a police officer has the authority, the power and the opportunity to assault/kill/rape someone you love and there's nothing they can do to stop it could you argue? Then when an Irv tells you,"But they will see their day in court," is that really freedom? He's conditioned to believe that a policy which allows persecution in this context is all okay because we use it for good in another context, and as he says the majority of Americans are also going to defend this "The ends justify the means mentality," or maybe see them as a necessary evil but very few recognize how giving them this type of authority only sells out your own freedom.

What is your alternative then? Please answer this question - do you seriously believe that people should be able to argue with police in the street, and have the legal right to disobey police instructions if they believe they know the law better than a cop? Do you seriously think that's a good idea? Looking forward to your reply.

 

 

 

 

 

Then when it is abused, it's always assumed those are isolated incidens, or that there's some extenuating circumstances, and it is a process of first denying and discrediting, and then accepting once it's indisputable so the conversation always ends with some type of rationale for why that action was unnecessary like some kind of consolation, and the only conclusion I've been able to reach is people seem to want to accept this as a sort of "collateral damage". Sure beats admitting the problem and fixing it.

Never said that it's all isolated incidents. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

 

 

Oh and the thing about marijuana laws and the police not getting to decide if they enforce those laws... I guess the Seattle Police Department's decision to make it the lowest priority issue for the department doesn't mean anything? They effectively said, "We have bigger things to worry about, we will only respond if we have nothing better to do" and somehow the foundation of law and order didn't collapse and crumble before them for having some discretion.

 

Low priority issue does not equal totally ignoring the law. If a Seattle cop caught someone with felony weight of Marijuana before it was made legal in the state do you really think they would've said LOL BYE to the guy they stopped? Come on dude.

 

 

 

The issue is it's an undertiminate statistic, some could argue it must be really low and others can say high but no one really has a way to prove it... Oh except promoting the use of body cameras and civilian review boards instead of secret grand jury indictment procedures and bullsh*t privacy issues.

How does a body camera negate grand juries? Are you saying everyone gets a right to a secret grand jury incidtment process except police officers? that sounds really fair, liberal, and equal!

 

 

I think it has a lot more to do with our runaway prison industrial complex. Imprisoning people has become a multi-billiom dollar a year industry in the U.S and our prison population is soaring. Better yet black men have a hugely disproportionate rate of incarceration, and you kind of realize slavery hasn't stopped it's just called "corrections" now. If I had to come up with my own "conspiracy"' it's that prisons are going to keep filling up because they keep building them. Problem is people aren't going to commit enough crimes to keep up, so we have to either make laws for them to break or get them to break the already numerous and often superfulous laws we have now. So now if you don't make a signal to change lanes and backtalk a cop, they can arrest you for "assault" and you'll be making 80 cents an hour making license plates--oh if you're not found mysteriously hanged before you get there. Oh and have you noticed all the TV about prison? Reality shows, fictions, documentaries, people know more about what life will be like in prison before they even need to, and if you think about it in terms of my "conspiracy" why not? It's a situation more and more people are going to find themselves in as time goes on, so why not desenaitize them to it a little bit make it familiar, not so foreign... You know who else does that? Gangs who know their members are going to end up there. So you take that with people constantly being told their personal and civil rights means nothing compared to "officer safety" and more and more people justify and rationalize millions of low level drug arrests year in and year out and grasp at any straws necessary to view it as "instilling law and order", it fits right in with a grand conspiracy of preparing and desensitizing the public to large scale enslavement disguised as imprisonment.

You ramble on and on about stuff we've discussed and all but agreed on in previous pages. As for mysteriously being hanged, that case is pretty open and shut. She hanged herself. We've agreed multiple times on over incarceration and on criminal penalties being too significant for a lot of crimes. So again, if this is directed to me I heard you on the last 3 times you said it.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Okay well first of all part of that was in response to the idea of this all being preparation for civil war and secondly a lot of the arguments you've made are not rare and there are several other people and places I've seen them made so just because it's something you've also said by coincidence, I'm not addressing you but the argument in general. Oh and spare me the idea that I'm twisting or contorting your words, if you're going to pretend like you haven't contended that these incidents are rare and not the norm, not reflective of a tend and are part of a departments by department set of circumstances... Or in other words, isolated incidents. If you're going to act like you haven't said that, I'm not going to waste my time quoting every excerpt where you at least imply it--lets just take a general survey, anyone else remember Irv saying something vaguely simolar to that? Oh and again you're not even the sole proprietor of that ideology so I'm really not even addressing you alone. In fact, maybe you actually never said anything like it and I'm mistaking someone else having said it, but when police apologists make such generic and recycled arguments it gets hard not to argue against the rheotirc from the echo chamber.

 

As for people arguing in the streets with cops, here are some novel approaches...

1 Improve the police officer's knowledge of the law, train them in regards to what people's rights are, not what their authority is, in order to avoid more conflicts in the first place.

2 Reform resisting arrest laws to ensure frivolous "assault" charges cannot be brought and so people won't be treated as criminal fore having natural human reactions... This status quo where flinching or jerking equals a resisting charge doesn't actually benefit anyone

 

I think these are much more reasonable approaches than, "Just expect everyone to willingly disregard their rights and subject themselves to unnecessary and unlawful detainment/seizure/arrest" type of approach.

 

Simply put though if police weren't constantly putting citizens in a position where they need to argue that would be a better approach. Just expecting people to subject themselves to arrest when they know they've done no wrong isn't a good solution either but you seem so much more ready to defend that one as if it's actually going well.

 

In the meantime all of this always seems to come down to the matter of officer safety. Like they can't or shouldn't possibly tolerate so much as a twitch because their life is im peril one hundred percent of the time. But then what about the growing discrepancy between police officers being shot in the line of duty and citizens being shot by police because as has been demonstrated the gap is pretty broad. It would seem to any objective person the cops shouldn't be as worried about getting shot as much as the people their guns are being pointed at on a regular basis should.

[Dingdongs]

Okay well first of all part of that was in response to the idea of this all being preparation for civil war and secondly a lot of the arguments you've made are not rare and there are several other people and places I've seen them made so just because it's something you've also said by coincidence, I'm not addressing you but the argument in general. Oh and spare me the idea that I'm twisting or contorting your words, if you're going to pretend like you haven't contended that these incidents are rare and not the norm, not reflective of a tend and are part of a departments by department set of circumstances... Or in other words, isolated incidents. If you're going to act like you haven't said that, I'm not going to waste my time quoting every excerpt where you at least imply it--lets just take a general survey, anyone else remember Irv saying something vaguely simolar to that? Oh and again you're not even the sole proprietor of that ideology so I'm really not even addressing you alone. In fact, maybe you actually never said anything like it and I'm mistaking someone else having said it, but when police apologists make such generic and recycled arguments it gets hard not to argue against the rheotirc from the echo chamber.

I've argued against MTD when he said police were unjustly killing blacks on an incredibly frequent basis, yes. I never said that there weren't problems with the police department. I've written at great length about the issues with police departments and in fact you liked my post the other day where I did just that, as I have been doing for like a year on the forum here so yeah. Just because I defend police when I believe you are all unfairly going after them does not mean I totally think the US police are just totally fine and dandy.

 

 

As for people arguing in the streets with cops, here are some novel approaches...

1 Improve the police officer's knowledge of the law, train them in regards to what people's rights are, not what their authority is, in order to avoid more conflicts in the first place.

2 Reform resisting arrest laws to ensure frivolous "assault" charges cannot be brought and so people won't be treated as criminal fore having natural human reactions... This status quo where flinching or jerking equals a resisting charge doesn't actually benefit anyone

I think these are much more reasonable approaches than, "Just expect everyone to willingly disregard their rights and subject themselves to unnecessary and unlawful detainment/seizure/arrest" type of approach.

So you contend that people should not be able to disobey police orders then? That's what I said. I agree with informing police better of peoples' rights and teaching them deescalation rather than escalation. But at the end of the day, you can't resist a cop whether he's right or wrong. You have to work it out in court.

 

 

Simply put though if police weren't constantly putting citizens in a position where they need to argue that would be a better approach. Just expecting people to subject themselves to arrest when they know they've done no wrong isn't a good solution either but you seem so much more ready to defend that one as if it's actually going well.

 

In the meantime all of this always seems to come down to the matter of officer safety. Like they can't or shouldn't possibly tolerate so much as a twitch because their life is im peril one hundred percent of the time. But then what about the growing discrepancy between police officers being shot in the line of duty and citizens being shot by police because as has been demonstrated the gap is pretty broad. It would seem to any objective person the cops shouldn't be as worried about getting shot as much as the people their guns are being pointed at on a regular basis should.

Police should use force per the force continuum or when critically necessary. If a guy is coming at a cop with a knife, he should be able to apply one level above of force and shoot the person. Similar, if an unarmed is coming at a cop, the cop should be able to apply one level above and use his taser or his baton. That's the way I see it. I'm not sure if you agree, interested to know. That's also actually how it is taught by the book, but a lot of police are quick to jump to the firearm. In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, recall that the Ferguson PD DID NOT issue Tasers to their officers and Officer Wilson was not carrying a taser, thus he had to use his firearm when Brown reached into his car at his weapon.

 

Edited August 13, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Yeah but what I'm generally trying to point out is your feeling that there is some kind of witch trial going on towards police belies the idea that you acknowledge a systemic issue, the inherent idea of it needing to be reviewed on a case by case basis comes with this kind of, "because the cop probably didn't do anything wrong" kind of slant to it. I mean obviously anyone is going to agree a case by case review is fair but whereas I think it's only necessary for fairness, would I be wrong assuming you feel that the overwhelming majority of complaints would be frivolous? Because that kind of makes a conflict of interest between seeking truth, no matter what it is, and shielding police from undue legal recourse because your personal opinion is most are not guilty.

 

What I am saying is civilians should have a right to resist if the orders, "lawful" or not, are unreasonable to follow at the time of arrest and should have some kind of legal recourse to shield them from criminal proceedings based on the resistance. We already see so many cases where a person sues for wrongful arrest but that is after the fact, when the person has already gone through the legal system. That is a reactionary type of policy that doesn't do anything to ensure more victims aren't created, and it also does nothing to ensure that those who feel they would get a unfair conviction for such offenses have a legal standing. So in other words, if a two strike convict flinches and squrims while he is being arrested, I don't think he really gets a fair trial when the cops attest that he hit them just to "get a bad guy off the streets for good" by making it his third strike. Because the problem is police are not supposed to be able to have that influence, because what happens when it's a racist officer who fabricates the story because the guy was black as well? These are flaws that can be, and probably are exploited.

 

Moreover though it is the principle behind it. The idea some have is that you should obey any order given by police because it's their job to enforce the law, but that basically means you should wave your right to defend yourself as well. How do you balance both, especially when any type of physical resistance is severely punished? This idea of it seeing its day in court completely dismisses the very real issue that most people do not want to be brutalized and jailed even if they do see a million dollar settlement out of it. The simple fact is that this "resistance" not only incurs an unnecessarily heavy legal penalty on some, but authorizes the officer to use lethal force only really does one thing, by which it is designed, and that is to get most people to not even think of resisting. I do not think that is a good thing, because where does it leave you when the order is unjust, hoping it even makes its way to court. Oh and let me tell you, half of the people that get some fancy lawyer probably couldn't afford it in the first place if the newspapers hadn't made some sensationalized headline out of it that would make it any attorney's wet dream so if you expect to be able to file any kind of suit you better hope you have money.

 

I mean what are we, Borg? Don't resist the collective because the collective is never wrong... Except it's more like double think because while we are expected to live our lives according to this notion, we know damn well it is wrong and that if such wrong ever befalls us we can sue... If we have money that is. Again it is selling out our own interests.

 

No I don't agree with that use of force continuum and I'm not surprised that is how the book is written, because it was written by people who care more about officer safety and still believed in Dudley Do Rights, and who have no concern over the civilian in question, probably only ever refers to them as "suspect" and forget that "guilty until proven innocent" is backwards. If a civilian tried to follow the same use of force continuum in a defense scenario then it would be called assault with a deadly weapon or murder.

 

However we don't have the responsibility and duty to fight crime... Though I'm tempted to bring up Joe Lozito again when it comes to the notion police have no choice to enter dangerous situations. However if you're going to be one that contends that because they have this extra duty they should be afforded more protection and privelege with the application of force, then I can only contend that such extra privilege only further merits more transparency.if they want to shoot someone for pointing a scrwdricer at them, the grand jury process, and every damn bit of legal proceeding should be public knowledge since it was a public servant killing a person with the extra authority we trusted them to use prudently. I don't see any excuse for shielding officers from this kind of thorough examination except of course from departments and people whose interest is to shield themselves from liability.

 

You're operating on the assumption that Wilson was telling the truth. Which a lot don't agree with, and when the police try to suppress evidence and launch smear campaigns it doesn't enhance their credibility then you have the recent Samuel Dubose case and basically when you say they should be able to follow the use of force continuum, what everybody else hears is they should be able to keep shooting unarmed people and lie about it in court to get away with it, because that is what it facilitates.

 

I really wish sivis would weigh in more with how this differs in the UK. They don't carry sidearms I know but they still have weapons and must use force to facilitate an arrest. I suppose there not being as much guns there might mean officers there are "safer", but on the contrary I also know they carry knife proof vests so it can't all be traffic tickets and drunk/disorderly, and I am sure they respond to their own fair share of domestic violence situations. Oh and again, when so often the lethal object in question in American police encounters is a knife or a screwdriver, let's leave the subject of guns out and explore this... What makes British cops so much more able to respond to domestic disputes without resorting to lethal force for fear of great bodily harm? Or more simply, why do their cops not shoot every drunken idiot that comes at them with a butter knife?

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Yeah but what I'm generally trying to point out is your feeling that there is some kind of witch trial going on towards police belies the idea that you acknowledge a systemic issue, the inherent idea of it needing to be reviewed on a case by case basis comes with this kind of, "because the cop probably didn't do anything wrong" kind of slant to it. I mean obviously anyone is going to agree a case by case review is fair but whereas I think it's only necessary for fairness, would I be wrong assuming you feel that the overwhelming majority of complaints would be frivolous? Because that kind of makes a conflict of interest between seeking truth, no matter what it is, and shielding police from undue legal recourse because your personal opinion is most are not guilty.

I would say the overwhelming majority are frivolous. Look at New York City CCRB and Office of the Public Advocate/NYPD Inspector General (all of which are ENTIRELY independent from the NYPD) reports and you'll see that the vast majority of civilian complaints are ruled to be unfounded.

 

What I am saying is civilians should have a right to resist if the orders, "lawful" or not, are unreasonable to follow at the time of arrest and should have some kind of legal recourse to shield them from criminal proceedings based on the resistance. We already see so many cases where a person sues for wrongful arrest but that is after the fact, when the person has already gone through the legal system. That is a reactionary type of policy that doesn't do anything to ensure more victims aren't created, and it also does nothing to ensure that those who feel they would get a unfair conviction for such offenses have a legal standing. So in other words, if a two strike convict flinches and squrims while he is being arrested, I don't think he really gets a fair trial when the cops attest that he hit them just to "get a bad guy off the streets for good" by making it his third strike. Because the problem is police are not supposed to be able to have that influence, because what happens when it's a racist officer who fabricates the story because the guy was black as well? These are flaws that can be, and probably are exploited.

If what you are getting at is, we should train cops so that these situations DO NOT happen in the first place, then I'm with you. If you are trying to argue that we should have a system wherein people can determine if a police officer is issuing a lawful order or not, and be able to disobey the officer if they believe it's unlawful, then you're crazy. That's literally anarchy on the streets (waiting for MTD to quote this).. you cannot have a society wherein people can legally disobey orders from the police and actively physically resist being restrained legally.

 

Moreover though it is the principle behind it. The idea some have is that you should obey any order given by police because it's their job to enforce the law, but that basically means you should wave your right to defend yourself as well. How do you balance both, especially when any type of physical resistance is severely punished? This idea of it seeing its day in court completely dismisses the very real issue that most people do not want to be brutalized and jailed even if they do see a million dollar settlement out of it. The simple fact is that this "resistance" not only incurs an unnecessarily heavy legal penalty on some, but authorizes the officer to use lethal force only really does one thing, by which it is designed, and that is to get most people to not even think of resisting. I do not think that is a good thing, because where does it leave you when the order is unjust, hoping it even makes its way to court. Oh and let me tell you, half of the people that get some fancy lawyer probably couldn't afford it in the first place if the newspapers hadn't made some sensationalized headline out of it that would make it any attorney's wet dream so if you expect to be able to file any kind of suit you better hope you have money.

Not true. The ACLU and other groups like that will gladly take up police brutality/unlawful order cases pro bono. You don't need money to go after an unlawful arrest.

 

No I don't agree with that use of force continuum and I'm not surprised that is how the book is written, because it was written by people who care more about officer safety and still believed in Dudley Do Rights, and who have no concern over the civilian in question, probably only ever refers to them as "suspect" and forget that "guilty until proven innocent" is backwards. If a civilian tried to follow the same use of force continuum in a defense scenario then it would be called assault with a deadly weapon or murder..

However we don't have the responsibility and duty to fight crime... Though I'm tempted to bring up Joe Lozito again when it comes to the notion police have no choice to enter dangerous situations. However if you're going to be one that contends that because they have this extra duty they should be afforded more protection and privelege with the application of force, then I can only contend that such extra privilege only further merits more transparency.if they want to shoot someone for pointing a scrwdricer at them, the grand jury process, and every damn bit of legal proceeding should be public knowledge since it was a public servant killing a person with the extra authority we trusted them to use prudently. I don't see any excuse for shielding officers from this kind of thorough examination except of course from departments and people whose interest is to shield themselves from liability.

A civilian in the United States can follow the same continuum, and that same continuum is used routinely in common law to determine justification behind a self-defense case. Of course, there is a higher standard for your average civilian because your average civilian is not actively enforcing laws and putting themselves into dangerous situations. As for a transparent and open process when force is used, that already exists in New York City, but is admittedly lagging in other areas. I see no reason why the people should not be entitled to the results of an investigation by public advocates/inspectors general. The idea that we should open the grand jury to public view is something I will not support though. A grand jury is meant to be a secret process. That's like, the idea of a grand jury. You might as well get rid of them if you do not agree with that.

 

You're operating on the assumption that Wilson was telling the truth. Which a lot don't agree with, and when the police try to suppress evidence and launch smear campaigns it doesn't enhance their credibility then you have the recent Samuel Dubose case and basically when you say they should be able to follow the use of force continuum, what everybody else hears is they should be able to keep shooting unarmed people and lie about it in court to get away with it, because that is what it facilitates.

No, I'm not. the DOJ is when they confirmed through forensics and eyewitness testimony that 1) Brown reached for Wilson's firearm and 2) Brown charged Wilson. I recommend you read the DOJ report before talking out of your ass on this. Read both reports actually. The one that exonerates and supports Wilson, and the one that shows the Ferguson department was engaged in racially disparate policing through the targeting of minorities for summonses/tickets to generate revenue.

 

I really wish sivis would weigh in more with how this differs in the UK. They don't carry sidearms I know but they still have weapons and must use force to facilitate an arrest. I suppose there not being as much guns there might mean officers there are "safer", but on the contrary I also know they carry knife proof vests so it can't all be traffic tickets and drunk/disorderly, and I am sure they respond to their own fair share of domestic violence situations. Oh and again, when so often the lethal object in question in American police encounters is a knife or a screwdriver, let's leave the subject of guns out and explore this... What makes British cops so much more able to respond to domestic disputes without resorting to lethal force for fear of great bodily harm? Or more simply, why do their cops not shoot every drunken idiot that comes at them with a butter knife?

There are less guns in the UK which is the #1 reason why the comparison is irrelevant. I would recommend you read the minutes or watch conferences from groups like the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) wherein you will hear British police officials discuss this very matter, and argue that the different cultures and different laws are the reason for such disparities in police carrying firearms, etc. Also of note is that British police have units that carry firearms that are readily able to respond to incidents within minutes. Furthermore, Europeans are debating the issue ever since the French officer who did not carry a weapon was brutally murdered by the ISIS-inspired attack on Charlie Hebdo. In fact, they've already begun arming more police.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/european-police-push-for-guns-after-terror-attacks-threats/

 

[Saggy]

On second thought blah blah blah

Edited August 15, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[GrandMaster Smith]

Criminal scumbag thinks he's allowed to (horrendously might I add) sing Beach Boys out of tune in public. Cops took care of that elderly idiot pretty quick with a gentlemanly body slam

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77StG4YGBwc

Edited August 18, 2015 by GrandMaster Smith

[Fonz]

I don't see anything wrong, man! The guy was clearly trying to have fun, which the law #79457257 of Stickford-upon-Anus clearly prohibits. The old man should have known better than to sing a song in public—that sh*t is some serious criminal behaviour. I mean, just obey the officer or whatever, right? Pffft, look at that terrorist trying to walk away peacefully... Clearly posing a threat to the officer's safety. Who does this guy think he is, some kind of human being? We don't take kindly to those types!

Edited August 18, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Dingdongs]

Don't know what the circumstances were... nevertheless the officer really didn't do anything bad to the guy, he did a pretty standard takedown that probably caused the guy minimal pain and then put him in cuffs. When a cop puts somebody that is noncompliant in cuffs they are going to the ground, that's how it works. Try putting somebody in handcuffs standing up while they are actively walking away/resisting you.

 

Obviously if this guy didn't do anything other than sing, and hasn't been previously warned/escorted off the area the cop is going to have a hard time explaining the encounter. It looks bad but if we want to sit around and armchair judge the thing we should know what the circumstances were.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irviding

[GrandMaster Smith]

Irviding I've come to the conclusion you're just simply a troll, albeit a persistent one. There is absolutely no way somebody can be as thick as you're being or have such a lack of sympathy for others without requiring some serious mental evaluation.

[Fonz]

nevertheless the officer really didn't do anything bad to the guy

The man's screams would suggest otherwise.

 

When a cop puts somebody that is noncompliant in cuffs they are going to the ground, that's how it works. Try putting somebody in handcuffs standing up while they are actively walking away/resisting you

Hmm, the man had a brief exchange with the officer and then started to walk away peacefully. That's when the cop decided to take him down for no discernible reason other than reaffirming the ridiculous authority that is transmitted to these lunatics when the state gives them a tool and a license to exert violence in a sickly, masturbatory way.

 

Try putting somebody in handcuffs standing up while they are actively walking away/resisting you.

Why would you handcuff someone for singing in a public space? He didn't resist arrest—he realized the cops wanted him out of there and started walking away, which should have been the end of it, had the police buffoon not felt the urge to bring his retarded macho impulses to fruition. Besides, he would have been right to resist arrest anyway. Isn't the police meant to "protect and serve"? Who are they protecting and/or serving? Definitely not citizens, as I highly doubt anyone feels safer now that some random guy was abused and arrested for singing in public. Actually, I think that would make most people feel very unsafe, to be honest. The only thing I see here is a mindless gorilla gratuitously assaulting an elderly person.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Dingdongs]

anyone being arrested gets handcuffed. that's it, no ifs ands or buts unless you're surrendering at a police station or court house. Again, the man's screams were likely overblown because that was a pretty standard takedown. It may have hurt a bit when he was moving the guy's arms.

 

Both of you are casting judgement on this without knowing the facts. I am inclined to agree with both of you if this guy was never previously warned to sing on the street like that and the cop just decided to cuff the guy for no real reason. However, I'll say it again, you simply do not know if this guy was warned 100 times not do it, if he had been locked up for it before, if the community had reported him for doing inappropriate things there apart from singing. Instead of sitting here whining and crying without knowing the circumstances perhaps you should try to find them out first.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irviding

[Fonz]

I did look at the facts. Apparently someone called the police just because of the guy's singing. The fact is that another video shows that people were actually having a bit of fun watching the guy sing and dance, plus it also refutes the officer's claim that the man had touched him (he didn't) and “became very hostile and began yelling in (his) face", all of which is bullsh*t. The cop's justification for his power trip here is demonstrably false. Here's the link with the alternative angle http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=005_1439805982(the actual report is pretty poor, but the second video is useful)

 

Regardless, is unquestioned submission a healthy attitude here? In this particular case, I suppose it's fairly clear-cut, since there's visual evidence to accuse the cop, but what about the tons of other instances that go undocumented? Is every order acceptable as long as the idiot giving it happens to have a gun and a badge? How far can it go? Rape?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Dingdongs]

I did look at the facts. Apparently someone called the police just because of the guy's singing. The fact is that another video shows that people were actually having a bit of fun watching the guy sing and dance, plus it also refutes the officer's claim that the man had touched him (he didn't) and “became very hostile and began yelling in (his) face", all of which is bullsh*t. The cop's justification for his power trip here is demonstrably false. Here's the link with the alternative angle http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=005_1439805982(the actual report is pretty poor, but the second video is useful)

 

Regardless, is unquestioned submission a healthy attitude here? In this particular case, I suppose it's fairly clear-cut, since there's visual evidence to accuse the cop, but what about the tons of other instances that go undocumented? Is every order acceptable as long as the idiot giving it happens to have a gun and a badge? How far can it go? Rape?

Cool, so if that turns out to be correct then I agree with you 100%. However, more often than not this thread is full of people posting youtube videos with zero context and crying and whining about a cop doing his/her job.

 

Tthe man was reported to police by an elderly person because he/she did not like the noise. Therefore, the police had a reason to question the man. The man started walking away while he was being legally detained to answer questions, so the officer acted to restrain the man. However, a smart cop using his discretion would not have acted so confrontationally with some borderline crazy guy singing on the side of the road... could have asked him nicely to keep it down, issued him a summons and left, a plethora of other things apart from locking the guy up. The only justifiable reason I would see for locking that guy up would be if he had been reported for it before and had disobeyed an order to stay away/had been doing inappropriate actions along with singing which we see from people like this who stand on the road very often. Nevertheless this cop is going to have to answer some big questions now that he gave a false statement that the man touched him. If that was sworn statement he could very well be charged with a minor felony (if they can prove he did it maliciously).

Edited August 18, 2015 by Irviding

[Fonz]

Yeah, that's a balanced perspective, Irv!
I totally agree on the points about the officer being overly confrontational. Have to confess I don't know too much about formal internal police procedures, but I do hope he's held accountable for his behavior in this situation. We're in agreement here, for sure.

[Saggy]

Yeah, that's a balanced perspective, Irv!

I totally agree on the points about the officer being overly confrontational. Have to confess I don't know too much about formal internal police procedures, but I do hope he's held accountable for his behavior in this situation. We're in agreement here, for sure.

 

So what happened to your cries about all the incidents like this which go undocumented?

 

Just saying that seems to keep getting swept under the rug in this discussion.

[Fonz]

 

Yeah, that's a balanced perspective, Irv!

I totally agree on the points about the officer being overly confrontational. Have to confess I don't know too much about formal internal police procedures, but I do hope he's held accountable for his behavior in this situation. We're in agreement here, for sure.

 

So what happened to your cries about all the incidents like this which go undocumented?

 

Just saying that seems to keep getting swept under the rug in this discussion.

 

Oh, I still maintain everything I said about that, but I was just glad that Irv conceded this one. The undocumented cases are still very much a matter of concern to me. There is an institutional problem that is not being addressed here. I also reject the idea of unquestioned obedience to police orders. The "cavity search" rape case is yet another example of the lunacy which is made possible by providing a certain group with tools of coercion. It's just all-around disgusting.

[Dingdongs]

Look I'm not saying that cops SHOULD have such absolute authority that they have the right to f*ck you from behind on your hood in a traffic stop if they so choose.

 

What I'm saying is, you as a citizen do not have the right to disobey nor determine the legality of a police order while you are on the spot either being stopped or arrested. It doesn't matter if you are a Harvard lawyer with 30 years experience in criminal law. Nobody has the right to disobey police orders. Why? Because doing so would require physically assaulting the police officer when it comes down to it. Can you stand up and say, "hey officer I do not have to consent to your search"? Absolutely you can. But if the cop decides to say f*ck the law and search your car, you have no choice but to comply then take it up with your attorney afterwards. If you resist the cop there you will be taken to the ground and arrested for a felony. And if you had anything illegal in your vehicle it would be totally admissible because it goes from being an illegal search to being incident to your arrest. Are you all trying to say that people should have the right to disobey police and physically engage with them if they think they are better experts on the law? Come on.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Are you all trying to say that people should have the right to disobey police and physically engage with them if they think they are better experts on the law? Come on.

 

 

 

In the current state of things where you can get face planted with your arms restrained behind your back simply for singing in public or get shot without posing any kind of threat then yes people should have the right to disobey orders.

 

I mean if the case is a cop's trying to illegally search your car that's one thing, but skull/facial fractures, broken necks or death is not worth the price of bowing down to tyranny. A person should have every right to defend themselves from assault even if that guy's wearing a shiny little badge.

[Tchuck]

 

Are you all trying to say that people should have the right to disobey police and physically engage with them if they think they are better experts on the law? Come on.

 

 

 

In the current state of things where you can get face planted with your arms restrained behind your back simply for singing in public or get shot without posing any kind of threat then yes people should have the right to disobey orders.

 

I mean if the case is a cop's trying to illegally search your car that's one thing, but skull/facial fractures, broken necks or death is not worth the price of bowing down to tyranny. A person should have every right to defend themselves from assault even if that guy's wearing a shiny little badge.

 

 

But that doesn't work in modern society. The government should have a monopoly on violence in order to maintain the order in society. That's why there are laws, and the police exist to uphold them. The issue is that some officers overstep their authority, and should be punished for it. That type of behaviour is unacceptable and can be fought and fixed. But simply resisting arrest or using force against the officer is not going to achieve that. That is Irviding's point. He's not defending cops who abuse their authority. He's merely stating that the practical way of fighting it is through the proper channels. Otherwise things WILL escalate and it won't end well. Whether or not fighting through the proper channels does work, and I don't have statistics or data on that, is another problem altogether.

[Saggy]

 

 

Are you all trying to say that people should have the right to disobey police and physically engage with them if they think they are better experts on the law? Come on.

 

 

 

In the current state of things where you can get face planted with your arms restrained behind your back simply for singing in public or get shot without posing any kind of threat then yes people should have the right to disobey orders.

 

I mean if the case is a cop's trying to illegally search your car that's one thing, but skull/facial fractures, broken necks or death is not worth the price of bowing down to tyranny. A person should have every right to defend themselves from assault even if that guy's wearing a shiny little badge.

 

 

But that doesn't work in modern society. The government should have a monopoly on violence in order to maintain the order in society. That's why there are laws, and the police exist to uphold them. The issue is that some officers overstep their authority, and should be punished for it. That type of behaviour is unacceptable and can be fought and fixed. But simply resisting arrest or using force against the officer is not going to achieve that. That is Irviding's point. He's not defending cops who abuse their authority. He's merely stating that the practical way of fighting it is through the proper channels. Otherwise things WILL escalate and it won't end well. Whether or not fighting through the proper channels does work, and I don't have statistics or data on that, is another problem altogether.

 

 

A little outdated but these were the only relevant statistics I am able to find with the data you're mentioning. Though one thing to keep in mind of course is that these statistics inherently cannot account for the number of incidents ( let's call it figure x ) that represents the amount of police misconduct incidents that go completely under the radar because internal reviews didn't catch anything.

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

You know honestly, that "figure x" can be applied to any segment of society. There's a lot to be made about low crime statistics overall in the country, but are they really that much lower? Do we even know about all the crime that occurs? Of course we can't and so there's always this discrepancy between how much crime is reported to happen and how much is actually taking place. However there's another part to consider, and that's the manipulation of the statistics and the strategies used in collecting the data in order to present them in ways that make the crime rate appear to be falling. It's manifested in things like "humble" arrests in Balitmore, or not recording anything short of an emergency room visit as an assault case. It's not exactly something one can prove but I think it's a little foolhardy to deny that it happens at all so it really questions the validity of statistics at all.

 

What I find interesting is how people refuse to look at the anecdotal side of this as if it has any validity and want to continue to pursue the notion that there needs to be some kind of large, big-picture, mathematical summation of this that they can look at by the numbers and it's just not going to happen like that. If and when it does, the numbers are so easily manipulated and determinable that they're just going to show one thing or the other depending on who is producing them; of course the ACLU is going to find more cases of abuse and misconduct than say the DOJ. In the meantime though, there's this very disorganized, very raw macrochosm of evidence available in the form of hundreds of videos of police and civillian encounters being published on the internet. Some people act like there's only a couple of them, but go look at YouTube, you can search "police brutality" and literally watch one questionable video after another for hours all day. I'm supposed to think, "Oh well, I don't know each individual little scenario that happened there, maybe that guy who was singing and just got manhandled had been warned not to trespass, that excuses everything these must just all be misunderstandings." It's just down right apathetic at worse and wilfully ignorant at best. People are looking toward the mouthpiece of lies for the "truth", and then viewing reality for themselves and rationalizing every which way about how it's not really how it seems.

[Dingdongs]

Those are statistics on general police misconduct; not statistics on whether or not people are able to legally fight misconduct by police in the courtroom.

[Saggy]

Those are statistics on general police misconduct; not statistics on whether or not people are able to legally fight misconduct by police in the courtroom.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/#Prosecuting_Police_Misconduct

[Dingdongs]

 

Those are statistics on general police misconduct; not statistics on whether or not people are able to legally fight misconduct by police in the courtroom.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/#Prosecuting_Police_Misconduct

Nope. That isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not people are able to get their charges dismissed when there is police misconduct, not whether or not officers are prosecuted. In my opinion based on what I've read and my knowledge of this stuff I would say more often than not when a cop is actually wrong, people are able to get off. There are thousands of civil rights attorneys waiting to take these cases pro bono. You can go to ACLU website and find like 5 in every zip code. If a cop blatantly violates someone's fourth amendment rights, it generally doesn't fly when said person makes an accusation. Most police departments immediately bring in internal affairs when such an accusation is made, and contrary to public mantra it's taken quite seriously. Cops that violate someone's rights once have likely done it before.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Irviding

[make total destroy]

It doesn't matter that cases are dismissed when these rotten f*cking pigs still have jobs. A cop threatened to 'blow my head off' and later told me he would not regret it had his 'finger slipped on the trigger.' I took it to his superiors, and he's still a cop today. This was 8 years ago.

[Tchuck]

 

A little outdated but these were the only relevant statistics I am able to find with the data you're mentioning. Though one thing to keep in mind of course is that these statistics inherently cannot account for the number of incidents ( let's call it figure x ) that represents the amount of police misconduct incidents that go completely under the radar because internal reviews didn't catch anything.

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

You know honestly, that "figure x" can be applied to any segment of society. There's a lot to be made about low crime statistics overall in the country, but are they really that much lower? Do we even know about all the crime that occurs? Of course we can't and so there's always this discrepancy between how much crime is reported to happen and how much is actually taking place. However there's another part to consider, and that's the manipulation of the statistics and the strategies used in collecting the data in order to present them in ways that make the crime rate appear to be falling. It's manifested in things like "humble" arrests in Balitmore, or not recording anything short of an emergency room visit as an assault case. It's not exactly something one can prove but I think it's a little foolhardy to deny that it happens at all so it really questions the validity of statistics at all.

 

What I find interesting is how people refuse to look at the anecdotal side of this as if it has any validity and want to continue to pursue the notion that there needs to be some kind of large, big-picture, mathematical summation of this that they can look at by the numbers and it's just not going to happen like that. If and when it does, the numbers are so easily manipulated and determinable that they're just going to show one thing or the other depending on who is producing them; of course the ACLU is going to find more cases of abuse and misconduct than say the DOJ. In the meantime though, there's this very disorganized, very raw macrochosm of evidence available in the form of hundreds of videos of police and civillian encounters being published on the internet. Some people act like there's only a couple of them, but go look at YouTube, you can search "police brutality" and literally watch one questionable video after another for hours all day. I'm supposed to think, "Oh well, I don't know each individual little scenario that happened there, maybe that guy who was singing and just got manhandled had been warned not to trespass, that excuses everything these must just all be misunderstandings." It's just down right apathetic at worse and wilfully ignorant at best. People are looking toward the mouthpiece of lies for the "truth", and then viewing reality for themselves and rationalizing every which way about how it's not really how it seems.

 

We can ignore anecdotal evidence in the grand scheme of things because they might be a statistical anomaly. When you're talking about millions of things, one or two or one hundred or one thousand occasions are a very small trend to say that it is a huge problem. You can use them to indicate that there might be something wrong and act as a starting point, specially on these cases of police brutality, but you can't use them to say that everything is all bad. You can pretty much find anecdotal evidence to "support" any claim whatsoever, that's why you need more than that to show a trend, to show that something is actually as bad as you imply.

 

Similarly, you say that "oh what about the cases when it isn't reported/noticed by the media", what about the likely many, many cases where nothing happens at all because everyone follows procedure, but it doesn't get picked up by media? I wish these statistics were tracked, so we could get a proper view at how things really are, but alas they're not. The large majority of traffic stops don't result in death. According to this, which may be incomplete mind you, 323 people were killed by law enforcement officers this year. How many traffic stops have happened? How many drug busts? How many racist events? How many confrontations outside a convenience store? It sucks that these things happen when they shouldn't happen, and we should find ways to prevent them from happening, but to simply dismiss the entire police force as bad or corrupt based on a small percentage of issues is simply asinine.

 

And yeah, you can go on youtube and find thousands and thousands of "evidence" of "police brutality". Unfortunately most of them just show the confrontation itself when things have already escalated, and not the whole course of events which led to the confrontation. You can also search for "police kindness" or what have you and see other evidence of the police actually doing their job properly. It's not apathetic to think about the circumstances, because they are what are most important. Somethings can be excused based on them, somethings are not. If there was the whole video of the guy singing, and it did show him doing something improper or he already had a previous history, the officer's actions would have been justified. If there wasn't anything out of the ordinary, the penalty on the officer would be even heavier. No-one is defending that officer as well, he f*cked up and handled things bad and will pay for it.

 

Yeah, there are problems with some officers and how they handle their duty. No-one here is disputing fact. No-one here is saying that some officers aren't corrupt/racist/power-hungry. In the cases where the person seeks the proper channels, the officer gets disciplined, fired or has to respond for his actions. In the cases where the person escalates the issue on the spot, either by not complying or being confrontational, then the officer "wins" as you just provided him with all the legal reasons to do what he really wants to do.

 

Bottomline is: the police, overall, does far more good than bad. Few percentage of all police engagements end in the death of the suspect. The way to reform the police isn't simply "f*ck them all, fire them all", but it is an effort that should take both parties to. Civilians have to stop disobeying a police officer when he's being reasonable, even if he's wrong, and then take it up with the precinct, find a lawyer, go after the proper channels. With enough push, something will be done. On the police side, the bad officers MUST be dealt with, and careful selection must be done when recruiting the officers, to ensure you're not putting a psychopath in a position of power. The issue of racism is something that is far deeper inside American society that won't be fixed by fixing the police itself, when the population itself is racist.

[GrandMaster Smith]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction.. In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction;

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

 

 

Nationwide the police are being trained against 'domestic terrorist' citizens who are 'constitutionalists' or have a belief or are prepared for a collapse of government or the economy. They're being trained through fear that American citizens are blood thirsty and will kill at any given opportunity.. when in reality only 25 have been killed by extremists in the last 15 years, compared to the ~25 unarmed civilians the police kill per month. It's like they've been being brainwashed through training to perceive threats where there are absolutely none.

Edited August 20, 2015 by GrandMaster Smith

[sivispacem]

You can't seriously pretend that the police addressing right wing extremism and the resurgence of the militia movement is a bad thing, can you? They are by definition extremists, they've demonstrated a propensity for violence targeting both the agents and the systems of government which has surpassed that of Islamic extremists over the last few years, and yet you think the police calling a spade a spade and addressing violent extremism is some kind of affront to the constitutional rights of far right extremists to go and perpetrate their violence? Of course, only a minority of militia groups actually use violence to further their political goals but given the recent resurgence I don't think it's unrealistic for law enforcement to see violent right wing extremism as a significant threat.

 

In my opinion the only reason you take issue with it is because you hspppen to share many views with militiamen.

[GrandMaster Smith]

they've demonstrated a propensity for violence targeting both the agents and the systems of government which has surpassed that of Islamic extremists over the last few years

 

 

Yeah probably because Islamic extremism is a laughable threat. You can thank the news for portraying it as any real danger.

 

25 police officer deaths over the last 15 years is a joke to make this in the top 3 priorities of law enforcement requiring nationwide training against terrorists. Multiple more officers die in day to day events by regular criminals than by extremists.

 

What a coincidence police are being trained 'The Threat is Real' creating a delusion of this imaginary major threat creating an Us vs. Them mentality then we see a huge rise in police killing people?

 

 

In my opinion the only reason you take issue with it is because you hspppen to share many views with militiamen.

 

What?? This is one of the more stupid things I've seen you say.. Or is this just one of your attempts of public discrediting?

Edited August 20, 2015 by GrandMaster Smith

[Saggy]

 

 

A little outdated but these were the only relevant statistics I am able to find with the data you're mentioning. Though one thing to keep in mind of course is that these statistics inherently cannot account for the number of incidents ( let's call it figure x ) that represents the amount of police misconduct incidents that go completely under the radar because internal reviews didn't catch anything.

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

You know honestly, that "figure x" can be applied to any segment of society. There's a lot to be made about low crime statistics overall in the country, but are they really that much lower? Do we even know about all the crime that occurs? Of course we can't and so there's always this discrepancy between how much crime is reported to happen and how much is actually taking place. However there's another part to consider, and that's the manipulation of the statistics and the strategies used in collecting the data in order to present them in ways that make the crime rate appear to be falling. It's manifested in things like "humble" arrests in Balitmore, or not recording anything short of an emergency room visit as an assault case. It's not exactly something one can prove but I think it's a little foolhardy to deny that it happens at all so it really questions the validity of statistics at all.

 

What I find interesting is how people refuse to look at the anecdotal side of this as if it has any validity and want to continue to pursue the notion that there needs to be some kind of large, big-picture, mathematical summation of this that they can look at by the numbers and it's just not going to happen like that. If and when it does, the numbers are so easily manipulated and determinable that they're just going to show one thing or the other depending on who is producing them; of course the ACLU is going to find more cases of abuse and misconduct than say the DOJ. In the meantime though, there's this very disorganized, very raw macrochosm of evidence available in the form of hundreds of videos of police and civillian encounters being published on the internet. Some people act like there's only a couple of them, but go look at YouTube, you can search "police brutality" and literally watch one questionable video after another for hours all day. I'm supposed to think, "Oh well, I don't know each individual little scenario that happened there, maybe that guy who was singing and just got manhandled had been warned not to trespass, that excuses everything these must just all be misunderstandings." It's just down right apathetic at worse and wilfully ignorant at best. People are looking toward the mouthpiece of lies for the "truth", and then viewing reality for themselves and rationalizing every which way about how it's not really how it seems.

 

We can ignore anecdotal evidence in the grand scheme of things because they might be a statistical anomaly. When you're talking about millions of things, one or two or one hundred or one thousand occasions are a very small trend to say that it is a huge problem. You can use them to indicate that there might be something wrong and act as a starting point, specially on these cases of police brutality, but you can't use them to say that everything is all bad. You can pretty much find anecdotal evidence to "support" any claim whatsoever, that's why you need more than that to show a trend, to show that something is actually as bad as you imply.

 

Similarly, you say that "oh what about the cases when it isn't reported/noticed by the media", what about the likely many, many cases where nothing happens at all because everyone follows procedure, but it doesn't get picked up by media? I wish these statistics were tracked, so we could get a proper view at how things really are, but alas they're not. The large majority of traffic stops don't result in death. According to this, which may be incomplete mind you, 323 people were killed by law enforcement officers this year. How many traffic stops have happened? How many drug busts? How many racist events? How many confrontations outside a convenience store? It sucks that these things happen when they shouldn't happen, and we should find ways to prevent them from happening, but to simply dismiss the entire police force as bad or corrupt based on a small percentage of issues is simply asinine.

 

And yeah, you can go on youtube and find thousands and thousands of "evidence" of "police brutality". Unfortunately most of them just show the confrontation itself when things have already escalated, and not the whole course of events which led to the confrontation. You can also search for "police kindness" or what have you and see other evidence of the police actually doing their job properly. It's not apathetic to think about the circumstances, because they are what are most important. Somethings can be excused based on them, somethings are not. If there was the whole video of the guy singing, and it did show him doing something improper or he already had a previous history, the officer's actions would have been justified. If there wasn't anything out of the ordinary, the penalty on the officer would be even heavier. No-one is defending that officer as well, he f*cked up and handled things bad and will pay for it.

 

Yeah, there are problems with some officers and how they handle their duty. No-one here is disputing fact. No-one here is saying that some officers aren't corrupt/racist/power-hungry. In the cases where the person seeks the proper channels, the officer gets disciplined, fired or has to respond for his actions. In the cases where the person escalates the issue on the spot, either by not complying or being confrontational, then the officer "wins" as you just provided him with all the legal reasons to do what he really wants to do.

 

Bottomline is: the police, overall, does far more good than bad. Few percentage of all police engagements end in the death of the suspect. The way to reform the police isn't simply "f*ck them all, fire them all", but it is an effort that should take both parties to. Civilians have to stop disobeying a police officer when he's being reasonable, even if he's wrong, and then take it up with the precinct, find a lawyer, go after the proper channels. With enough push, something will be done. On the police side, the bad officers MUST be dealt with, and careful selection must be done when recruiting the officers, to ensure you're not putting a psychopath in a position of power. The issue of racism is something that is far deeper inside American society that won't be fixed by fixing the police itself, when the population itself is racist.

 

 

I agree with you for the most part but there really needs to be a bigger disconnect between the mention of police as individual entities, and the mention of police as the collective mechanism which serves the current criminal justice system. Because the latter is so intrinsically flawed, and so by extension so is the mechanism which serves it, i.e. the police of America. You just simply can't have it both ways where they're all honest, earnest and doing their job so they're good people, but then when their job detail is to uphold policy that is questionable then how can you really defend that they are good. Again it transitions into the talk of prisons filling up, systemic racism, and the police arresting people is pretty much the seed of all this so it's kind of hard to not identify them as part of the problem.

 

If there were a way to refer to the part that the police play in the current disrepair of the criminal justice system, how would you identify it in a way that separates the two facets? I feel like trying to find something like that honestly isn't even necessary, and that the cries of police officers being stigmatized really isn't as high a priority as say African American men being basically able to plan being incarcerated at some point because the job the police officer is sworn to do. Yeah we all want to go right to the top and change the laws that make him more likely to be arrested and thrown in prison on some bullsh*t, but first we have to identify and discuss the problem and part of the chronological order of events in this tale is being arrested by a police officer.

 

The only thing I will grant even a grain of merit to is the idea that police officers are being unfairly penalized and scrutinized more when these stories hit the news media, as if it is a big witch hunt. However I don't know that I'm really convinced by that, the Darren Wilson case is the closest I've ever seen to being a valid case of this but I feel that if the department itself hadn't bungled the internval investigation there wouldn't have been a need to call the DOJ to do an impartial review.

 

This might be a bad analogy depending on a person's view but I think the topic of gun control follows similar lines... Everybody wants to talk about how dangerous guns are. But they're not, they're just tools, it's how they are used that is dangerous. Likewise what I'm trying to get across is that police officers are tools too, they're a cog in the system. Unfortunately unlike guns they're also people too, so when they are villified and demonized there are actual human costs to this. However we can't just take the discussion about how they are implemented off the table, and I'll say it again since it seems to have been lost before, I REALLY believe police officers don't deserve to be used as pawns in the "War on Drugs" and that of all the police officers shot and killed in the line of duty, very many of them were probably while trying to enforce policy that was more closely related to drug crime than anything else.