
Streetfoto founder Ken Walton arrested at gunpoint - jseliger
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154366414123077&set=a.43585593076.53031.641348076&type=3&theater
======
1024core
> We live in a society where anywhere and everyone can have a gun at any time,
> and police are responding with fear in dangerous ways.

We have _always_ lived in a society with lots of guns. This level of police
fear is totally unwarranted (yes, I am well aware of the Dallas shootings, but
they happened recently, while the police have been shooting willy-nilly for
years). I blame the militarization of police, and indirectly the war in Iraq
(from where a lot of these cops come from, having served a tour or two).

Both sides need to calm the fuck down. And aggressive, pumped cops who draw
their weapons at the first chance need to be put out uniform.

Added later: I'd like to add that policing has not been this safe in
_decades_. Last year 123 officers were killed on duty (which includes all
deaths, including accidents, falls, etc.). The last time this few were killed
(excluding last couple of years) is in 1959:
[http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-
data/year.htm...](http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-
data/year.html)

~~~
gozur88
>I blame the militarization of police, and indirectly the war in Iraq (from
where a lot of these cops come from, having served a tour or two).

That doesn't make sense. There were always a lot of military veterans in
police forces.

~~~
jauer
Yeah, I have family that went to Iraq and they seem to be like "If we were
that trigger-happy we'd be in jail. If we can operate in a war zone with
tighter rules of engagement and risk of car bombs what's their problem?"

I think it's training and discipline. Training: Seems like Military's primary
job is training and police see it as an annoyance. Discipline: military people
go to jail for breaking RoE. Police CYA and get away with it.

Things are pretty wack when the infantry is better at not shooting innocent
people in a war zone than police in a relatively safe country.

~~~
newjersey
> Discipline: military people go to jail for breaking RoE. Police CYA and get
> away with it.

I absolutely agree. This is the gist of it. There is really nothing more and
nothing less.

Better training will always help but is useless without enforcement with
"teeth".

See [http://www.nj.com/jjournal-
news/index.ssf/2015/04/video_show...](http://www.nj.com/jjournal-
news/index.ssf/2015/04/video_shows_jersey_city_cop_de.html)

I resent the automatic position the union takes in any case.

> Carmine Disbrow, president of the Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent
> Association, is defending the cops.

They seem too eager to try to prove that they are worth the money they take
out from the salary.

Edit: Here's another:

[http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/10/jersey_city_polic...](http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/10/jersey_city_police_officer_michael_spolizino_not_g.html)
> During the trial, Garrigan noted that Clifford was crossing against the
green, implying that Clifford bore some of the responsibility. He also noted
that speeding on Kennedy Boulevard is common.

Can I say that to get out of a speeding ticket? No? Why not?

Also
[http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/01/trial_date_nearin...](http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/01/trial_date_nearing_for_jersey_city_cop_charged_wit.html)
> Police said there was no indication that Spolizino was under the influence
of alcohol or any other substance, so a sobriety test was not administered.

------
koenigdavidmj
Cops need to have their use-of-force rules be softened to _exactly_ the same
as what is required of a non-police lawful carrier, unless they are engaging
someone who's known to be hostile (serving a warrant, for instance).

The new standard: you only draw if there is an imminent threat of death or
grave bodily harm. If you use "his hand was too close to his waist" as an
excuse to draw on someone, or you draw before seeing them actually pose a
threat, you go to prison for a very long time.

While we're at it, ban police unions, and don't require a conviction to have a
bad cop removed from their job. Better safe than sorry.

Don't like it? Work in another field.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
>Don't like it? Work in another field.

It's hard enough to find good people (note the qualification) willing to be
police already. Add more restrictions and penalties and you'll soon find that
nobody will be willing to take the job.

~~~
x1798DE
> Add more restrictions and penalties and you'll soon find that nobody will be
> willing to take the job.

That's probably fine. If we really need them we can pay more to get them.
What's happening now is that we're paying them with "get out of jail free"
cards instead of money.

~~~
dragonwriter
> What's happening now is that we're paying them with "get out of jail free"
> cards instead of money.

Which, just to emphasize this, disproportionately (compared to paying in cash
-- I'm not saying that the majority of police have this preference) attracts
people who prefer payment in "get out of jail free" cards, who may not be the
people you want doing policing.

------
ypeterholmes
It's absolutely insane how quick and willing the police are to use lethal
force. It's a systemic problem and an ongoing national tragedy. To fix it we
need cameras on every single officer and a complete institutional overhaul
where basic procedures are reworked and violations are dealt with
aggressively. Too many officers currently see zero repercussions for this type
of illegal behavior, and it tears apart the social fabric of our communities.

~~~
nickff
The police treat their personal safety as the top priority, and have been
doing so for some time. As a result, they are totally willing to hurt or kill
others in order to prevent themselves being threatened.

My view is that their job is to protect non-police, not the 'boys in blue'. As
such, they should be willing to put themselves at risk in order to 'serve and
protect' the public, including suspects. Most police units should change their
motto to reflect their current priorities: "to serve and protect police".

~~~
throwanem
> they should be willing to put themselves at risk in order to 'serve and
> protect' the public, including suspects

By and large, they are. They'd be a lot more so, except for a press and a
public ever ready to rip them to pieces for doing their jobs in a way that
doesn't make sense to well-meaning people who really don't understand what
they're looking at.

I've never been a police officer, but I've had some in the family. Their job
is a lot like that of a systems administrator, in one specific way that's of
import here: you don't get credit for your successes, because they're mostly
only visible to people in your profession, but your failures are obvious to
everyone.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"I've never been a police officer, but I've had some in the family. Their job
is a lot like that of a systems administrator, in one specific way that's of
import here: you don't get credit for your successes, because they're mostly
only visible to people in your profession, but your failures are obvious to
everyone."

Excellent point. It's why I always qualify these reports with "some police
departments, officers, etc" or "the corrupt cops." I make sure to
differentiate between the lethal ones and those doing anywhere from non-lethal
abuse (eg overticketing) to those doing a good job. Let's show some gratitude
that the good ones are good and the bad ones are usually not _that_ bad.

~~~
throwanem
I'm not sure it is very useful to frame the matter in terms of gratitude; I
might say rather that, in rightly condemning the actions of those officers who
do abuse their office, we must take great care not to overreact at the expense
of supporting those who faithfully discharge their oaths to serve the
communities we all share.

------
k-mcgrady
It sounds like this officer was out of line. However it made me think that
maybe this type of stop is a trade off you have to make for the 2nd amendment.
A stop where a cop is overly cautious and ready to use his weapon at a moments
notice because the other person could have a weapon too. Police here don't
carry guns and I am not worried if they try to stop me. In America I would be
very worried if I was going to be stopped and I would be extremely cautious
and deliberate in my movements whereas at home I wouldn't think about moving
slowly and explaining every action I was taking.

Edit: To be 100% clear I am commenting generally, not on this specific
incident which, from what we know, seems out of line.

~~~
peterkelly
> _maybe this type of stop is a trade off you have to make for the 2nd
> amendment._

In Australia, we don't have anything like the 2nd amendment, and stuff like
this simply doesn't happen (even to black people).

Just sayin'

~~~
emodendroket
[http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-
shoot-3-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-
shoot-3-bystanders/)

> (CNN)Two Australian police officers face an investigation after shooting
> three innocent bystanders outside a suburban shopping mall, while
> confronting a psychiatric patient armed with a knife.

------
jmcgough
Looks like this isn't the first time the officer (Oton Villegas) has done
something like this.

[https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/3:2013cv0822...](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/3:2013cv08229/806213)

------
jessaustin
I'm not sure it's wise to threaten to sue Arizona law enforcement while still
located in Arizona. Unlike in the incident TFA described, it's not likely now
that they'll kill him, because it's clear that such an outcome would come
under severe scrutiny. However, they're now quite motivated to engineer some
sort of legal threat, the charges for which a prosecutor could waive in return
for dropping a lawsuit. Maybe someone could assault him, with enough Arizona-
friendly witnesses around to "establish" that Walton started it. Maybe he
could get into a wreck, for which he could be blamed by Arizona investigators.
Those are some lonesome highways in northern Arizona.

------
ohazi
This is inexcusable. If it's impractical to prosecute police officers who
behave like this because of the cozy relationship between the district
attorney and police department, then at the very least the cops should be
immediately and permanently fired.

It is unacceptable for police officers to endanger and terrorize the public
like this.

------
clumsysmurf
Police are being trained to shoot first and ask questions later

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-
sh...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-
and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html)

------
marcusgarvey
Can insurance help solve this problem? As in, police depts. require each cop
to get some liability coverage. When incidents like this lead to a payout on
the cop's behalf, their premium goes up. Eventually it's too high for them to
afford so they must leave the job. If it's feasible then, regardless of how
they feel about BLM, convince taxpaying citizens to get behind this scheme
because their tax dollars shouldn't be going to settle these well-justified
lawsuits.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can insurance help solve this problem? As in, police depts. require each cop
> to get some liability coverage.

For cops to have to carry liability coverage, first you'd have to make cops
liable and effectively accountable.

And if you did that, you wouldn't need to worry about the insurance aspect of
things.

~~~
marcusgarvey
On making cops accountable, it does all come down to the public clamor for
this. We see these incidents and many are horrified and yet nothing changes.
This is why I wonder about working the wallet angle, and if insurance can be
part of the solution. How many New York taxpayers know that the City paid
close to half a billion over 5 years to settle NYPD related lawsuits? Can we
get more data on this from other cities and publicize it? Could a concerted
#TaxpayersLivesMatter campaign put enough political pressure on mayors and
governors (and counteract the police unions) to change the way these legal
settlements work today?
[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/428-million-
in-...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/428-million-in-nypd-
related-settlements-paid.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is why I wonder about working the wallet angle, and if insurance can be
> part of the solution.

 _Personal_ insurance _requires_ personal liability to insure.

But if you establish personal liability (which is _not_ an easy legal issue,
among other complications), that _itself_ is essentially the whole ballgame,
whether or not there is an insurance mandate and even whether or not the
liability is even insurable.

> Could a concerted #TaxpayersLivesMatter campaign put enough political
> pressure on mayors and governors (and counteract the police unions) to
> change the way these legal settlements work today?

Or would the effort backfire, and taxpayer concerns _align_ with police unions
to create even _more_ barriers to public agencies being held liable, which
would deal with the _taxpayer_ issue without dealing with the _police
violence_ issue at all.

~~~
marcusgarvey
>Personal insurance requires personal liability to insure.

Any insight into how this gets established by profession? Seems to be an
entire industry offering and encouraging nurses to take out malpractice
insurance, beyond whatever their employers' coverage is.

On the effort backfiring...maybe, but I don't see why it would play out the
way that you describe. The criminal justice system lets these cops skate, but
apparently the civil system is picking up the slack -- as evidenced by that
NYC figure cited. _Somebody_ is going to keep paying for these, I do not think
there's anything the unions can do to change that fact. So the only question
is who and if you can make the case to taxpayers that it sure as hell
shouldn't be them, self-interest might rule and help fix this.

Edit: some clues here as to the question of personal liability of cops. From a
study by Joanna Schwartz in the NYU law review:

>This Article empirically examines an issue central to judicial and scholarly
debate about civil rights damages actions: whether law enforcement officials
are financially responsible for settlements and judgments in police misconduct
cases. The Supreme Court has long assumed that law enforcement officers must
personally satisfy settlements and judgments, and has limited individual and
government liability in civil rights damages actions—through qualified
immunity doctrine, municipal liability standards, and limitations on punitive
damages—based in part on this assumption.

>Scholars disagree about the prevalence of indemnification: Some believe
officers almost always satisfy settlements and judgments against them, and
others contend indemnification is not a certainty. In this Article, I report
the findings of a national study of police indemnification. Through public
records requests, interviews, and other sources, I have collected information
about indemnification practices in forty-four of the largest law enforcement
agencies across the country, and in thirty-seven small and mid-sized agencies.

>My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified:
During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars
that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law
enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive
damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to
settlements or judgments — even when indemnification was prohibited by law or
policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for
their conduct.

[http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...](http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf)

A rational taxpayer should be very upset about this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The criminal justice system lets these cops skate, but apparently the civil
> system is picking up the slack -- as evidenced by that NYC figure cited.

The civil system picks up the slack because of the current state of the law --
which is also the same reason that the departments and not the individuals are
picking up the tab.

If you propose _changing_ the law to protect the taxpayers -- rather than
protecting victims -- from the costs, and the change you propose is to move
the liability to the officers, you have to be prepared for the alternative
proposal to be made that the correct way to protect the taxpayers is to change
the law to reduce or eliminate the exposure to liability entirely, rather than
moving it police officers.

~~~
marcusgarvey
No, really, why are the departments picking up the tab, even in cases where
the city's law prohibits this? The NYU paper has a couple illustrations.

>Only one jurisdiction in my study—El Paso, Texas—reported a practice of never
indemnifying police officers.145 Yet no El Paso officer personally satisfied
settlements or judgments against him during the study period. The city of El
Paso did, however, pay $279,000 to settle sixteen civil rights cases against
its officers between 2006 and 2011. The deputy city attorney in El Paso
explained that, because the city is responsible for paying officers’
attorneys’ fees, it sometimes settles claims against officers because it would
be less expensive to pay a small settlement than to continue to pay for the
defense of the case. From the deputy city attorney’s perspective, paying a
settlement on behalf of an officer to avoid the cost of further litigation
should not be understood as equivalent to indemnifying that officer.

>California allows indemnification of punitive damages if the “governing body
of that public entity” finds that “[p]ayment . . . would be in the best
interests of the public entity.” [How do they figure?]

>Some jurisdictions [Las Vegas, New York, Oklahoma City, and Prince George’s
County] appear to have indemnified officers in violation of governing law.

>Jurisdictions may sidestep prohibitions against indemnification of punitive
damages by vacating the punitive damages verdict as part of a post-trial
settlement.

>Although my study shows that officers almost never contribute to settlements
and judgments, I found anecdotal evidence that some government attorneys
affirmatively use the possibility that they will deny officers indemnification
to gain settlement leverage, limit punitive damages verdicts, and reduce
punitive damages verdicts after trial— only to indemnify their officers once
the cases are ultimately resolved.

>During litigation, the threat that a city will deny indemnification may
discourage plaintiffs from proceeding with claims against individual officers.

[http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...](http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf)

------
untangle
Ken Walton is also a self-confessed con man and author of the memoir "Fake."
Small world?

I'd like to hear the police's side of the story before launching tirades about
aggressive, pumped cops.

[https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2016/08/12/local-authors-post-
abou...](https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2016/08/12/local-authors-post-about-run-in-
with-arizona-highway-patrol-goes-viral/)

------
beachstartup
i'm not white, and i also like sports cars, which means i'm pulled over a lot.

i think a lot of white people aren't actually familiar with the 'protocol'
because they've never really had to think about it. but here it is, for those
of you who don't know it:

when you get signaled to pull over:

1\. turn your blinker or hazards on, and start to pull over 2\. pull over in a
safe spot away from traffic, but without going too far away from the main
road. oftentimes the officer will get on the loudspeaker and direct you where
to pull over.

3\. while you're stopping, ROLL YOUR WINDOWS DOWN (this is apparently what he
forgot to do) 4\. once stopped, turn your engine off and put the parking brake
on 5\. put your hands at 10 and 2, _ON THE WHEEL_ 6\. look into the rear or
side mirror so they can see your eyes are on them and not something else.

i guess it's just getting to the point where even white people have to do
these things. probably because of the meth / heroin epidemic.

~~~
will_brown
> 5\. put your hands at 10 and 2, ON THE WHEEL

I stick both hand out of the window with fingers spread out. I have had odd
reactions, and most officers actually think I am an officer myself or I have
family that is LEO (I am not and I don't, but I have practiced as a criminal
defense lawyer, which I don't acknowledge either). Probably the oddest
reaction was one officer saying I must really not want to get shot while
laughing at me.

~~~
whamlastxmas
Reaching outside my car window sort of sounds like a really bad idea. That's
what someone would do when holding a gun trying to aim backwards at the cop.

~~~
will_brown
>That's what someone would do when holding a gun trying to aim backwards at
the cop.

I note my fingers are spread out (show all 10 digits), I wouldn't recommend
doing it with anything in your hand: cell phones, wallet or even ID. Anyway
ask a cop about it...it has always been acknowledged and appreciated in my
experience.

------
amckenna
The cop was over reacting, no question about it. However it sounds like the
issue stemmed from a computer system that did not make it clear that it was a
plate that was missing and not the car. I wonder what the actual screen looked
like that the officer misread. He was driving, reading and typing in a license
plate, and reading the computer readout. Seems like a color coding system or
some kind of better UI could have prevented him from mis-interpreting that the
car was stolen. It sounds stupid to say that a UI fix could prevent this kind
of violence but I wonder if it could have and how often this type of thing
happens.

Proper communication is the first line of defense against conflict.

------
wpietri
A harrowing story. I especially appreciate his explicit recognition of Black
Lives Matter. Privilege is extremely hard to notice when you're in the middle
of it. But when you get up close to its edges, it can be much easier to see.

~~~
leereeves
His statement "[if] I was black, or young, or long-haired, or tattooed, or
didn't speak English - I believe he might have pulled the trigger" was
entirely speculation.

He, and you, are projecting your opinions on this situation without relevant
evidence.

~~~
wpietri
You are quite the mindreader, aren't you? To know the entirety of his thoughts
and mine, and our two lives of experience, without having met either of us.
Impressive.

~~~
leereeves
I'm not trying to read anyone's mind, only the words you've written. If you're
holding back evidence that this cop is racist, please share it and I'll
happily admit I was wrong.

OTOH, if you can't provide any evidence, I would ask you to withdraw your
statement connecting a white man being held at gunpoint by an aggressive
officer to white privilege.

Then, you might want to peruse The Counted, the BBC's database of people
killed by police in America, and see people of all races who were killed by
police while unarmed.

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database)

~~~
wpietri
It is not my job to educate you in the history and mechanics of privilege and
power, and I certainly won't try to do it through a comment box. I also have
no idea why you think yourself entitled to ask me to withdraw anything.

And yes, of course, you aren't trying to read anyone's mind. That's the
problem. You appoint yourself vigilante of any statement offered without a
dissertation's worth of evidence. But then you immediately make unsupported
statements about what we know, about exactly how we think. You took not a
moment to understand, you asked not one question.

The only difference I see is that our statements question the status quo,
while yours defend it. That is a depressingly common double standard when the
police come up. It's also common from white people on the topic of race, and
there when I dig into it it normally is rooted in white fragility[1].

Either way, I stand by my statements. I'm sure that Ken Walton stands by his.
That you don't understand is not my problem. Stomp your feet all you like, but
your ignorance is your problem to fix.

[1]
[http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249](http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249)

~~~
leereeves
The author publicly made a serious allegation of racism against an officer of
the law, based solely on his own preconceived notions, which you supported,
and apparently neither of you have any evidence to back up those allegations.
Ironically, it's actually YOU pre-judging the officer.

Then you mischaracterized my statements entirely. I'm not defending the status
quo - I'm pointing out that you and BLM are wrong to assume this is only a
problem for black people.

Police brutality can happen to anyone.

Like Chase Sherman, a 32 year old white male.

> Sherman's mother called 911 after he had a bad reaction to a substance she
> believed to be the drug 'spice'. According to authorities, Sherman and the
> responding deputies ended up in an struggle and a Taser was used. Sherman
> became unresponsive shortly after. Body camera footage shows Sherman being
> shocked repeatedly while handcuffed in the back of his fiancee's car.
> Sherman was shocked at least 15 times, according to deputies' Taser logs.

Or Eric Tompkins, a 41 year old white male.

> Tompkins allegedly refused to keep his hands out of his pockets while
> talking to officers who had been dispatched to respond to reports of a
> suicidal man. Two officers fatally shot Tompkins when he pulled a cellphone
> out of his pocket, which the officers said they believed was a gun.

Or William Bowers, a 51 year old white male.

> A deputy shot and killed Bowers, who was homeless, after he ran from police,
> authorities said. Deputies reportedly tried to stop Bowers while he was
> riding his bicycle because they recognized him and knew he was on probation.

But by all means, continue to attack anyone who asks for evidence if you wish.

~~~
wpietri
You did not "ask for evidence". You made judgments about the OP and me.

Your "racism is not a problem" agenda also blinds you to what was actually
said. Neither I nor he "assume this is only a problem for black people".
That's something you made up to argue with.

Again, it's not my job to educate you on this stuff. If you would like to
understand the racial component to state violence in America, there's been
plenty written on it, from before America's independence up to the present
day.

If you won't bother to do that, I'm entirely ok with that. American opinions
on race get saner at a rate very close to the birth/death rate:

[http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bb8ic2qate-
wa_cbgc2ifg.png)

Planck said that "Science advances one funeral at a time;" society is, if
anything, worse. Thanks to white fragility, you may be one of the many white
people that takes your ignorance to the grave, just like all those now-dead
opponents of black/white marriages.

I'd rather spend my time on people young or curious enough to learn something.

~~~
leereeves
I pointed out the lack of relevant evidence in my very first post, and the
second, and third. And again as the first sentence in this post.

Once again you've missed the point, because your agenda about society has led
you to ignore the facts of _this_ case.

The author made allegations of racism against a specific officer based solely
on his belief that such officers are common in society.

And you refuse to acknowledge that you have no evidence _this_ officer is
racist. No matter how common you may believe racism is, you should not
publicly accuse people of racism without evidence.

And about society, you're also ignoring two simple facts: 1) more white people
are killed by police than black people, 2) the number of people killed by
police, by race, is roughly proportional to the violent crime rate, by race,
as well as the murder rate, by race (which is what one would expect if police
were not racist, but rather simply targeting criminals).

My only agenda here is to find the truth. Your agenda is to ignore the truth
and simply accuse people of racism without evidence.

On a happier note, I'm encouraged to see some people have put aside a racial
agenda in favor of protesting deaths at the hands of police regardless of
race:

> But one group of mostly African-American civil rights leaders is stepping up
> to question a deputy's shooting of an unarmed, white, homeless man in
> Castaic — because it just might be the right thing to do.

> "We can't only be advocates when black people are killed by police
> unjustly," says Najee Ali, founder of Project Islamic Hope.

> "They shot this homeless man for nothing," Ali said of how witnesses have
> described the shooting. "He was unarmed and they killed him. I found out he
> was white later on. It doesn't matter to me."

[http://www.laweekly.com/news/an-unarmed-white-man-is-shot-
by...](http://www.laweekly.com/news/an-unarmed-white-man-is-shot-by-a-cop-and-
black-activists-rally-7216759)

~~~
wpietri
Yes, you caught me. Ignoring the truth is my agenda. Truth is dumb. Truth bad!
How smart, how perceptive you are to see so deeply into my character. You are
indeed a mind reader.

Again, I have no idea why you think you're entitled to infinite time spent
spoon-feeding you explanations, spent arguing you out of your ignorance. The
ignorance of random anonymous internet commenters is not my problem.
Especially when it's so willful and entrenched as here.

50 years ago there were people like you just wanting to get at the "truth" of
miscegenation. 150 years ago, it was just wanting to get at the "truth" of the
essential, natural inferiority of black people. [1] They saw themselves as
having no agenda. They saw themselves as having perfect understanding of a
deeply complicated topic.

But when there's an infinite amount truth and you choose a very particular
patch of "truth" to defend, your agenda isn't just truth. You may not know
what your agenda is, but the rest of us don't have much trouble telling.

[1] e.g.
[http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/dec...](http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html)

~~~
leereeves
And once again you're accusing people of racism without evidence.

Merely for questioning your agenda you've compared me to people who were
against interracial marriage, and now to people who believed in racial
inferiority.

I don't think I'm entitled to your time, but I do think I, and this officer,
are entitled not to be the target of baseless insults.

But calling people racist merely for questioning the BLM agenda has become
such a cliche, I'm not surprised at all.

Personally, I believe _all victims of police brutality deserve justice,
regardless of race, even the white victims_.

And I think it's disgusting that BLM doesn't care (or at least, doesn't
protest) unless the victim meets their racial requirements.

They ignore nearly 75% of all people killed by police simply because of their
racial agenda. [1]

Do you?

1: According to [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database) 472 of 1800
people killed by police in 2015 and 2016 were black.

~~~
dragonwriter
> And I think it's disgusting that BLM doesn't care (or at least, doesn't
> protest) unless the victim meets their racial requirements.

BLM isn't about police killings, its about the neglect of the value of black
lives throughout society ( _especially_ , but not exclusively, in the lack of
accountability for killing blacks.) The killing that crystallized things and
triggered the formation of BLM wasn't even a police killing (it was the
killing of Trayvon Martin.)

The fact that the problem BLM exists to deal with overlaps with the problem of
police violence doesn't make it "disgusting" that they focus on the distinct
problem that the organization was created to address, anymore than it would be
"disgusting" that a hypothetical organization founded to address the problem
of the lack of accountability in police-on-civilian killings didn't address
white-on-black killings where the killer isn't a police officer, even though
"white-on-black" killings overlaps with police killings.

~~~
leereeves
Then we need another organization to address the neglect for the lives of the
poor of all races, and another to address the lack of police accountability
for killing civilians in general.

Two problems that are rarely reported when the victims are white, and I
sometimes wonder if wealthy liberals in SV are even aware of the white
victims.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Then we need another organization to address the neglect for the lives of
> the poor of all races, and another to address the lack of police
> accountability for killing civilians in general.

There are a number of each (including, in the latter case, the National Police
Accountability Project.)

BLM happens to, at the moment, be more successful in gathering media
attention. And, insofar as it is building support for specific policies, most
of them are not _specific_ to its narrow problem focus (e.g., universal police
body cameras and attention to how those cameras are used are ideas that have
become more broadly focused on due to BLM advocacy -- but don't do anything
less to protect non-black victims than black victims.)

~~~
leereeves
Indeed, the media focuses almost exclusively on BLM, and that's not entirely
thanks to media savvy on the part of BLM.

And while some of the policies BLM advocates will be good for everyone, many
responses to structural racism specifically exclude poor whites trapped in
structural poverty.

I will continue to advocate non-race-based solutions that benefit all
struggling people, and argue against race-based solutions that help some and
exclude others.

------
sabertoothed
This is truly frightening. A tiny (additional) mistake by anyone would have
cost lives.

There will be many people defending the right to bear arms. But seeing this
from another country and cultural background just makes you shake your head in
disbelief. If police officers think they have to be that overly aggressive and
cautious because of the general prevalence of guns, then maybe it would be a
good thing to reduce it.

I understand though that once there are so many guns out there it is hard to
reduce the number.

EDIT: There are more aspects to this, of course. Including better training for
police officers etc.

~~~
Gracana
I don't know if this will change your opinion any, but the danger of policing
in the US has been in steady decline since the 70s or so.

~~~
sabertoothed
My expectation of myself is that I change my beliefs if (new) evidence
suggests that I should.

How would that trend (...and I assume you are right...) disprove the
hypothesis that the prevalence of guns has something to do with the reported
problems (excessive police violence / aggression / for the lack of better
terms)?

------
walrus01
Look, this sucks, but if a cop is pulling over a car that's showing up in
their onboard computer as stolen, it's going to be treated as a felony traffic
stop, with weapons drawn.

~~~
metaphorm
re-read the post. it wasn't reported as a stolen car. it was a license plate
that was reported as missing/lost from a different car.

~~~
walrus01
License plate that's reported as stolen + seen by police mounted on the
"wrong" car (make/model does not match make/model of car where the plate came
from) = stolen car.

They're going to interpret it that way when looking at a car from behind, in
traffic, until they can prove it otherwise. They have no idea who the driver
or passenger are until they've stopped the car and checked things out.

Felony traffic stops are one of the MOST likely times and places when a police
officer will get shot and killed. I'm not surprised at all they came out with
guns drawn. It really sucks and I'd be pissed off and indignant if it happened
to me, as an ordinary non-felon law abiding driver.

------
jowiar
Correct me if I'm wrong (I've never held a gun), but from my gun-owning
friends, the first words I've generally heard regarding guns are "Don't point
the working end at anything you don't intend to put a hole in".

Is this criminalized? If not, can we lobby for it?

~~~
Gracana
There are laws against "brandishing a firearm," but different standards apply
to cops.

------
spb
So, while we're on the subject of major tech players who had a negative
interaction with the police and posted about it publically, and now that it's
been a little over half a year, did we ever find out what the full story was
with Ian Murdock's death?

------
blobbers
If we removed guns from non-federal officers and made gun violence a federal
crime, we could reach a Nash equilibrium state from a game theory perspective.
Criminals have no incentive to harm local police. Failure to surrender to a
police officer becomes a federal crime.

Better system?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe in a country where half the citizens own a gun. But how is a police
officer to respond to a crazed hunter etc? Call in the FBI every time?

------
codegeek
Horrifying to even imagine that someone has to go through this with their 7
year old sitting right behind them. Now I will be shit scared to rent a car
EVER!!

------
Unbeliever69
This SERIOUSLY pisses me off! You've never lived until you've had a loaded gun
pointed at you and a POS cop yelling lies at you. I hope that officer gets
nailed to a cross.

------
peterkelly
America.

~~~
DiabloD3
No, not America.

What that cop did was straight up terrorism, and should be detained awaiting
trial and treated as an immediate and persistent threat.

~~~
4ad
Are you denying that these events happen orders of magnitude more often in the
United States compared to other developed countries, say in Germany?

~~~
x0x0
Or that the cop involved will never face any consequences? At all?

Freddie Gray showed up with a fucking _SEVERED SPINE_ and it was apparently an
act of god, just like the virgin birth, because none of the cops were
responsible.

Hell, they can murder Eric Garner _on video_ and walk.

Or shoot a man by "accident", watch him die, and nothing happens. Oh noes,
probation! That'll learn 'em!

------
Xyik
It's time to disrupt police states, hopefully there are start-ups already on
it.

~~~
wpietri
I wouldn't expect much here. I don't see a lucrative early-adopter market. The
wealthy and privileged are already mostly exempt from police states; their
biggest victims are those with the least money and power. There also isn't a
big, obvious revenue stream to divert, as with most startup disruption.

The one bright spot here I see is Twitter (and the parts of Facebook that are
most Twitter-like). Turning everbody into a micropublisher and microeditor has
helped make police abuse much more visible.

~~~
Xyik
I don't see why there can't be a public website for civilians to submit cases
like this. Obviously there will be complex legal/moral issues, but there needs
to be a way to put a spotlight on police who misuse power, as well as reward
the few non-corrupt ones left. If they serve the public, why should the public
not be aware of what they are doing? Twitter and Facebook are fine, but not
good enough. If anything they are evidence that a way to catalog and aggregate
police data would be in high demand.

~~~
drhodes
there is: [http://www.copblock.org/](http://www.copblock.org/)

