Two days ago I mentioned Rayshard Brooks, and someone replied that he had acted stupid.
What probably happened is that the cuffs were tightened enough to cause excruciating pain, and he started to struggle, and it escalated from there. In the video we hear a click as the cuffs are put on, then a second click, and then he suddenly pulls away. A Black friend of mine, former Special Forces, was cuffed that way for Working Late While Black at the business he was CEO of. He described it as “excruciating pain. Truly intense.” Fortunately, several white employees were there. One called the mayor’s office; it took a call from the mayor to get my Black CEO friend free.
Causing pain to provoke resisting-arrest or assaulting-an-officer is often done deliberately by the police. Here’s a quote from a former police officer, a self-described “bastard cop”: “Police officers will use intentionally extra-painful maneuvers and holds during an arrest to provoke “resistance” so they can further assault the suspect.”
Links to the video and the Bastard Cop article, and analysis of the video, are in this brief article and my followup comments.
Officer Bronsan was clearly trying to de-escalate the situation before Officer Rolfe showed up. After helping Rayshard move to where he can sleep it off, and before Rolfe arrives, Officer Bronsan mutters, “Don’t wanna deal with this dude right now.” Is he talking about Rayshard Brooks, or about Officer Rolfe? I wonder what reputation Rolfe has in his police force? I wonder why the chief of police felt it necessary to resign almost immediately after Rayshard Brooks was killed?
When I think about a man, intoxicated but trying to cooperate – thinking he’d only be arrested – standing calmly while the cuffs click on – for a second he thinks it’s going to be OK, and then with another click pain stabs up his arm and he knows he’s being tortured on purpose but he can’t keep himself from twisting away – he’s wrestled down, he’s fighting for his life against people with a literal monopoly on violence and impunity to kill – he breaks free, he runs, he hears footsteps pounding after and knows he’s probably about to die – and then bang, bang, bang, he’s dead… I’m very tempted to make specific accusations. But watch the video and decide for yourself.
I’ll close with more words from the Bastard Cop: “Many cops fantasize about getting to kill someone in the line of duty, egged on by others that have.”
If Rayshard Brooks had been white the cops would’ve driven him home.
Bicycle Bill
Speaking as a white man who has accumulated some DUIs in my life, that is not true. It might have been the case back in the days of “Leave it to Beaver” and “Andy Griffith”, but by the mid-1980s and the era of MADD it just didn’t happen any more — if for no other reason than liability. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would have arisen it it had turned out that a well-meaning cop had, instead of arresting an impaired driver, given them a ride home — whereupon the person had gotten into another vehicle and gone out and injured or killed someone??
David M Willis
you’re right, it’s better if the cops just kill the guy
lightsabermario
Willis is exactly on the nose here. Liability and potential litigation have become horrible influences on the behavior and training of police. I’m definitely not saying it’s the only cause of our current crisis, but it’s definitely a factor. The police unions enforce a cops-safety-first behavior, over the lives of the public, and can sue cops if lax actions get another cop injured or killed, even if it was the right thing to do. That’s (one of the reasons) why you see SWAT and anti-riot teams committing brutality on innocent bystanders, they’re trained to see any, even imagined resistance as an attempt on their life and respond with unrelenting force to make an example of them. Imagine if firefighters were told not to risk their lives for civilians? They’d literally never save anyone!
lightsabermario
Clarification: not saying all litigation is bad, just saying that the ones protecting bad police and punishing fair ones have warped their training into something that is antithetical to what a police officer should be.
clif
I agree. Willis has a good point. With enough nukes we could probably eliminate drunk driving for at least a generation and maybe forever.
And the best part is there’s enough in stock we wouldn’t even have to manufacture new ones to do it.
Daniel M Ball
I think (Looking out the window at the distant haze of Seattle) that is simply not the case, DW. Three problems here: The moral problem, the political problem, and the tactical problem.
The Moral problem is: “What should we expect in terms of conduct, behaviour, training and integrity from our police forces?” You can call it the “Defining the difference between a police force and a gang of regime protection thugs” (or, as in the case of Chicago, Los Angeles and so on, just thugs).
The Political Problem: Police are at the beck-and-call of prosecution agencies, and those agencies include district attorneys and their lackeys, often these are elected positions, though sometimes they’re appointed by elected officials instead. DA’s get their brownies not from achieving justice, but by winning convictions. This runs directly counter to the ostensible job of police, which is to keep the peace in stressful situations, deter crime, investigate crime, and yes, arrest criminals in order to protect the public. Note that “arrest”, “Shoot” and other forms of violence are only supposed to be TOOLS for that primary mission of keeping the peace. Unfortunately, PD’s have to answer to DA’s, whose sole mission is to win lots of victories so they can run for mayor, governor, president…
This IS a basic conflict of interest and it’s one that has evolved/mutated from what that relationship is structurally SUPPOSED to be.
On the Tactical problem, we saw that play out. First officer on scene did the right thing; he got the guy to park, and was going to let the guy sleep it off/sober up enough to at least understand what was going on-the first cop’s approach was focused on keeping the peace. The second cop shows up, and HE wants to make brownie points with a hot-hot-DUI bust. This is where the problem began-you can call it an allegiance issue, one officer was more dedicated to the keeping-the-peace approach, while the other had more fealty to the ‘making brownie points with easy busts” approach.
From that point, things escalated and got out of control, with a confused man being assaulted by cops, less than a month after he likely saw a man STRANGLED TO DEATH BY MEN WITH BADGES on television/internet.
Pretty much, the guy had reason to believe he was in a lethal situation facing two cops, and he reacted in a manner that is suitable. Unfortunately, (well for him, anyway) he grabbed the Taser instead of the Service Automatic.
Either way, when you brandish a gun at someone keyed, primed and trained for a gunfight, there’s going to be a gunfight, and if you’re not aware, the gunfighter with the body-armor and the service automatic is likely to win.
Depending on which officer it was, if it was the second officer (the guy who basically turned a de-escalated situation into an existential conflict) who was fired, then the public is slightly safer. If it was the guy who tried to de-escalate at the beginning, not so much-because the police we should WANT are the ones who will use all those OTHER tools in their belt-like minimum force, and reasonable approach, and not-getting-froggy without a damned good reason.
but the root of the problem, and it’s what led to the circumstance of the shooting, is squarely in the Political side. As long as the Police are culturally and semi-unofficially (or even officially) beholden to the Prosecuting arm, and as long as we keep electing and promoting prosecutors who go after ‘low hanging fruit’ with a ‘winning is everything’ approach, we’re going to see repeat performances.
thejeff
The dependency goes the other way too though: Prosecutors who turn on the cops can face lack of cooperation from police, leading to them not getting those convictions they want. It’s a feedback loop.
And one supported, at least tacitly, by much of the US population. We see some cracks now, at least with the most egregious abuse, but I’m not sure it reaches the level of breaking that cycle – of not preferring DAs who get lots of crooks convicted, for example.
Meagan
That’s an insightful point, that is for bringing that up
Meagan
*thanks for
David M Willis
did you seriously fucking answer a sarcastic “yeah it’s better that the cops murder a guy just in case he does crime later” with “actually it’s better that the cops murder a guy just in case it makes their bosses cranky” but in like sixty fucking paragraphs, wtf
Bathymetheus
I don’t see how you get that Mr. Ball is promoting cops killing people from that essay.
And I for one wholeheartedly agree that DAs are in a conflict of interest position. It has been a concern of mine for several years, and it’s not just in the U.S. Unfortunately Western legal systems seems to be unwilling to admit it’s even a problem, let alone do anything about it.
Meagan
Yeah I’m with bathymetheus here, that is not what I got out of this.
Daniel you’re extremely uniformed and should sit tf down
DAs are not why cops murder people. DAs are why they so rarely face prosecution. Police Unions are why they get rehired and rarely get fired to begin with. White supremacy is why they murder with impunity. They do it because they WANT TO AND THEY CAN
Daniel M Ball
Fart Captor, it isn’t just white cops who behave badly, and you’re really going to go with black, hispanic, or asian cops being all ‘white power’ you’re frankly a fundamental part of the problem, because you’re excusing inexcusable behavior by claiming mass mental illness.
that’s not only unrealistic, it’s unstable. Are there bullies in uniform? yer godamned right there are. Are some of them racist? again, goddamned right there are, and where are the majority of these incidents happening, Fart?
Yeah, look it up. You can’t swing a dead cat in political circles without hitting someone who got their position by going after poor people using cops to pad their resumes with high conviction numbers, and what kind of person, do you suppose, benefits from, and works as an enabler for, that kind of conflict of interest? Racism is essentially unethical, it is placing blame on some group of ‘others’ for one’s failures and failings, tarring others with one’s own defects and dehumanizing other citizens to elevate oneself.
Do you suppose MAYBE there’s a problem here, where the demand for higher conviction rates meets a lowered ethical standard to create the ideal environment for cultivating unethical, morally weak, status-driven human predators? All racists are bullies, not all bullies are racist, but bullies prey on those who can’t defend themselves or who lack adequate defenses.
does that NOT sound like the situation we’re looking at with that shooting? One officer wanted to let the man sleep it off, the other went for the ‘way easy bust’ that wasn’t.
This issue is a moral one, it is also a political one, and I guarantee if you remove the toxic incentives and cultivating environment for bullies, you’ll push the racists out. OTOH, if you keep obsessign about skin color? they’ll just shift their feathers until you can’t see them anymore and stay right where they’re at, festering and breeding.
Black, Hispanic and Asian cops who unequally enforce the law on Black people (and others who experience unequal enforcement like Hispanic and Indigenous people) are upholding white supremacy because “unequally enforce the law on Black people” is a very large PART of white supremacy. Getting rid of toxic incentives to get convictions will undoubtedly help but tackling white supremacy is also part of the problem – and so are you if you don’t see it.
Bill, what the fuck country do you live in where you think a LAWSUIT impacts police behavior in any meaningful way? WRONGFUL DEATH suits don’t stop them. The CITY pays for it and the cop maybe gets some paid leave.
THIS IS WHAT ALL THOSE INCONVENIENT PROTESTS ARE FOR, IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING
Regalli
And the wrongful death suits are necessary because they won’t even get charged for killing people unless MASSIVE NATIONAL PROTESTS occur to force the department’s hand. And even then, they will almost certainly be found not guilty, because the standard to determine if the use of force was reasonable is I’m pretty sure based in how THEY PERCEIVED threat levels. It’s also clearly a different standard, in practice if not in writing, to the one black people acting in genuinely life-or-death situations are held to. (Case in point: Marissa Alexander.)
thejeff
Though the other messed up side of the Marissa Alexander case was the argument that she didn’t really feel threatened because she fired a warning shot, rather than shooting to kill.
I mean, I’m skeptical it would have worked out well for her if she had shot him, but the idea she would have had a better case if she had is scary too.
Bicycle Bill
The lawsuits I’m thinking of are civil suits, not criminal suits, where the victim (or the victim’s family) come lloking for compensation from anyone who had anything to do with the incident in any way, from the mayor to the individual members of the city council to the police/fire commission to the police chief to the shift commander to the cop himself … and most lawsuits like these — a civil case for money damages — would likely NOT fall under a city’s insurance policy.
Not to mention that many of the smaller communities where something like this was more likely to happen are self-insured, which means that yes, the city pays, eventually. But where does the city get that money, and how much do taxes and assessments go up (or what doesn’t get funded any more) because of it?
thejeff
This is common now in relation to police killings or even injuries. People win civil lawsuits against the police even when there aren’t charges all the time.
None of this seems to have changed policing practices.
That suggests to me that police departments don’t respond to the threat of lawsuits in the way you’re suggesting
Regalli
National protests have not been enough to make police deescalate and own their shit.
INTERNATIONAL protests have not been enough to make police deescalate and own their shit.
Why the fuck do you think lawsuits are gonna change their behavior? As thejeff says, they have occurred and that has not actually done shit to decrease the number of police killing civilians. For a start, police are still allowed to get away with more violence than civilians are by the courts because of their perception of threats. But even when the police and a family settle out of court, or a court finds in favor of the family, I point you to the following article by the Washington Post, who did a yearlong study of wrongful death claims involving the police over the prior decade, and money awarded to survivors.
Police departments can settle for over a million dollars. On average, those that go to court average more like $500,000 – though that’s probably in large part because a whole lot of cases get dismissed because there was, to cite an early case, ‘no evidence that the police department should have known the officer had a propensity to use excessive violence.’
That article was published in 2015. If million-dollar settlements for clear but-for the officer shooting them, this person would not be dead claims are not making police stop killing people, why the fuck would wrongful death suits with less obvious causation make an impact on them? If million-dollar settlements are not making officers STOP KILLING PEOPLE, then what the fuck WILL?
Chris Phoenix
As a matter of fact, the first cop on-scene just had him drive(!) into a parking space to sleep it off. Then he got some instruction over the radio and muttered “Don’t wanna deal with this dude right now.” I don’t know if he was referring to the victim or to his fellow officer who was about to arrive. Then, said fellow officer shows up, conducts a field sobriety check, and decides to arrest the victim for DUI.
So the first cop on-scene was definitely being chill and apparently was not even going to remove the guy from the parking lot – just let him sleep it off in his car and then drive away.
adam Black
By your logic, every drunk person must be arrested on the spot, lest they decide to drive later
I didn’t say something when I saw that comment the other day, and I really should have. The onus shouldn’t be on someone who’s drunk and trying to sleep it off – and he’d moved to a parking space from the drive-through, so I’m pretty sure he would’ve responded to reasonable requests* – to not get killed by someone whose job it allegedly is to keep people safe. Rayshard Brooks was one of the people included in that statement. If you must have an armed police force – and situations that are truly life-threatening enough to merit that are pretty rare, especially if we had decent gun control in play – then the BARE MINIMUM should be that those weapons only come out in an actual crisis, with someone actively and seriously dangerous, after every chance at deescalation has been thoroughly exhausted. It’s been very clear, for years, that white people in particular will consistently perceive black people in particular as ‘dangerous’ with no basis whatsoever. There are studies about it, in addition to the obvious trend. Kids get perceived as older than they are, because racism. Hands in pockets get perceived as a threat, because racism. It is not safe to have people be given lethal weapons and license to use them when there is active sociological evidence that their perception of danger is fundamentally skewed to endanger innocent people. And given there are teachers who work with kids with significant developmental and cognitive disabilities – kids who are, sometimes, considered actively dangerous – and don’t escalate to violence, given there are retail workers who deal with belligerent shits on a regular basis and don’t escalate to violence, it is absolutely possible to deescalate nonviolently in most situations.
For fuck’s sake, the white supremacist who committed a mass shooting at a black church was taken in alive and the officers let him get lunch before bringing him in. If an active mass murderer can be subdued safely then why the FUCK is it acceptable that the response to someone sleeping in a parking lot was escalation to lethal force?
* So we’re clear here, though? A reasonable request is ‘stay asleep and don’t drive til you’re sober’, or ‘would you like a ride home?’ And I would not judge any black person who didn’t feel safe accepting a ride home from the police given the track record there. I freely admit I know nothing about Georgia law, but here in Maryland? Not only is it entirely legal to sleep off intoxication in your car parked somewhere safe, it’s encouraged over trying to drive home impaired. We have a pile of case law about how you can leave the car running during that time, even, so people can leave the heat running in the winter and such. (It’s a six-factor test that basically boils down to ‘is it reasonable to think you could actually drive in the position you were found in?’) Asleep in a parking lot – asleep in a drive through, even, and if he managed to fall asleep there I’ve gotta assume that means it was closed so the distinction doesn’t really matter – is basically the safest place someone who’s too drunk to get home safe could be. Or rather, it SHOULD.
He wasn’t actually in the one-lane channel part of the drive through – he was in the parking lot leading up to it, and cars were going around him. So he wasn’t blocking cars but he was in the way and not properly parked. Making him move was reasonable.
I don’t know if he was asleep from extreme intoxication, or maybe from working three jobs, or both. The meter showed 108 which is 5 drinks for a 200 lb person.
I work in a school for children with Social and emotional disorders. Some of those children are habitually violent, and my colleagues and I are exposed to dangerous situations most days. Our training specifically covers de-escalation, with escalation into physical restraint ideally to be used less than 5% of the time. We are also trained to use restraint techniques which, if applied properly, don’t hurt the person restrained. If the child being restrained is hurt or injured, then the immediate response is to investigate whether the staff applied the restraint appropriately, or whether retraining is needed. And we are only teachers. We aren’t law enforcement. So if they can do it for us…
I also live in a country that responded to a mass shooting in a school (almost 25 years ago, now) by BANNING OUTRIGHT all private handgun ownership. Result? Almost no shootings, and no mass shootings at all. Because yes, “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns,” BUT THAT’S KIND OF THE POINT – and if you outlaw guns AND make them difficult to get hold of, then the number of outlaws who have guns is VERY LOW, and our police are not armed except in rare cases. We also have a legal system that tends NOT to protect police officers who cause death in the line of duty, with said officers facing suspension, investigation, having to produce evidence to justify the death as unavoidable, and the likely possibility of termination of employment and criminal charges in a justice system that often wants to make an example out of police who break the law. None of this is said with the intention of being smug or preachy – we still have massive amounts of institutionalised racism and high (and rising) levels of violent crime in the UK, because people are people, but our biggest problem is knife crime, not gun crime, and it’s less easy to escalate violence with a knife into MASS violence with a knife.
Rose by Any Other Name
I mean… yeah?
A goodly portion of Americans want some gun control laws that actually do stuff. All studies worldwide prove that the NRA’s claims about gun control laws benefiting criminals are BS. Only people who ignore actual data believe otherwise.
As far as the second amendment, that’s another case of ignorance winning out. That amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to maintain a militia to defend the state. AKA the National Guard. Constitutionally, as long as a state maintains a National Guard, they can ban all other guns, full stop.
Believe me, no one is more frustrated with American politics than Americans.
I’ve had that done to me. I was stopped for speeding in Georgia. They checked every state and found I had an outstanding ticket in Pennsylvania. The cop was pissed off and did everything he could to cause trouble. I had marks around my wrists for some time after they took the cuffs off. On top of everything else, they gave me four tickets, impounded my car, and added 10 mph to my actual speed. They actually did that thing where they counted my money and chose the fine. Cost me $1400. Fortunately, my nerves, for some strange reason, are not as sensitive to direct pressure as the average person’s seem to be. Those nerve holds smart alecks like to demonstrate don’t work on me.
I don’t think there was any need for second guessing. Robin was so concerned that she jumped out of her car and left the door open as she went to investigate. If she was annoyed instead of concerned she would have taken the time to shut her car door.
Jamie
Note to self: next time I’m annoyed at someone, leave the car door open so that people can tell.
clif
Not sure, but I think that’s backwards. I believe proper etiquette demands that you slam the car door to signal annoyance.
I don’t think there’s enough detail in that last panel to determine how livid she looks… And I don’t think Robin would be mad at Becky for using the twitter that way. Even a stern talking to seems out of character for her.
I don’t think Robin is totally Heartless, just more Thoughtless
Miri
Given that her response to Becky’s dad being free was to try to protect her from anxiety by not telling her while also hiring a 24/7 security team to shadow her, I think it’s fair to say that she cares.
She does, yes. She hired Becky’s bodyguards for a reason even if they were terrible. Robin’s issue isn’t that she is outright heartless but that she doesn’t often think many things through or how harmful said actions are or will be most of the time.
181 thoughts on “Edge”
Ana Chronistic
“Breakfast. Forever.“
Undrave
Soggies may rule…*le gasp!*
BrokenEye, the True False Prophet
Dude, don’t even joke about that.
clif
Jokes are best served cold.
And covered in milk.
SuperFroakie82
Hmm… That third panel looks strangely familiar…
SuperFroakie82
Wait! You can’t do that! Now my comment doesn’t make any sense!
clif
My random guess would be that he can.
I choose to believe the third panel was originally Joyce with the lizard on her head.
SuperFroakie82
(For future context, panel three was Ana’s gravatar picture)
SuperFroakie82
(Er, rather, Ana’s gravatar used to be panel three. Damn you lack of edit feature!)
Chris Phoenix
Two days ago I mentioned Rayshard Brooks, and someone replied that he had acted stupid.
What probably happened is that the cuffs were tightened enough to cause excruciating pain, and he started to struggle, and it escalated from there. In the video we hear a click as the cuffs are put on, then a second click, and then he suddenly pulls away. A Black friend of mine, former Special Forces, was cuffed that way for Working Late While Black at the business he was CEO of. He described it as “excruciating pain. Truly intense.” Fortunately, several white employees were there. One called the mayor’s office; it took a call from the mayor to get my Black CEO friend free.
Causing pain to provoke resisting-arrest or assaulting-an-officer is often done deliberately by the police. Here’s a quote from a former police officer, a self-described “bastard cop”: “Police officers will use intentionally extra-painful maneuvers and holds during an arrest to provoke “resistance” so they can further assault the suspect.”
Links to the video and the Bastard Cop article, and analysis of the video, are in this brief article and my followup comments.
Officer Bronsan was clearly trying to de-escalate the situation before Officer Rolfe showed up. After helping Rayshard move to where he can sleep it off, and before Rolfe arrives, Officer Bronsan mutters, “Don’t wanna deal with this dude right now.” Is he talking about Rayshard Brooks, or about Officer Rolfe? I wonder what reputation Rolfe has in his police force? I wonder why the chief of police felt it necessary to resign almost immediately after Rayshard Brooks was killed?
When I think about a man, intoxicated but trying to cooperate – thinking he’d only be arrested – standing calmly while the cuffs click on – for a second he thinks it’s going to be OK, and then with another click pain stabs up his arm and he knows he’s being tortured on purpose but he can’t keep himself from twisting away – he’s wrestled down, he’s fighting for his life against people with a literal monopoly on violence and impunity to kill – he breaks free, he runs, he hears footsteps pounding after and knows he’s probably about to die – and then bang, bang, bang, he’s dead… I’m very tempted to make specific accusations. But watch the video and decide for yourself.
I’ll close with more words from the Bastard Cop: “Many cops fantasize about getting to kill someone in the line of duty, egged on by others that have.”
Bunny
I’m sorry. I know the words you say are true. I’m just so sorry. This is wrong. It has to change.
Bunny
If Rayshard Brooks had been white the cops would’ve driven him home.
Bicycle Bill
Speaking as a white man who has accumulated some DUIs in my life, that is not true. It might have been the case back in the days of “Leave it to Beaver” and “Andy Griffith”, but by the mid-1980s and the era of MADD it just didn’t happen any more — if for no other reason than liability. Can you imagine the lawsuit that would have arisen it it had turned out that a well-meaning cop had, instead of arresting an impaired driver, given them a ride home — whereupon the person had gotten into another vehicle and gone out and injured or killed someone??
David M Willis
you’re right, it’s better if the cops just kill the guy
lightsabermario
Willis is exactly on the nose here. Liability and potential litigation have become horrible influences on the behavior and training of police. I’m definitely not saying it’s the only cause of our current crisis, but it’s definitely a factor. The police unions enforce a cops-safety-first behavior, over the lives of the public, and can sue cops if lax actions get another cop injured or killed, even if it was the right thing to do. That’s (one of the reasons) why you see SWAT and anti-riot teams committing brutality on innocent bystanders, they’re trained to see any, even imagined resistance as an attempt on their life and respond with unrelenting force to make an example of them. Imagine if firefighters were told not to risk their lives for civilians? They’d literally never save anyone!
lightsabermario
Clarification: not saying all litigation is bad, just saying that the ones protecting bad police and punishing fair ones have warped their training into something that is antithetical to what a police officer should be.
clif
I agree. Willis has a good point. With enough nukes we could probably eliminate drunk driving for at least a generation and maybe forever.
And the best part is there’s enough in stock we wouldn’t even have to manufacture new ones to do it.
Daniel M Ball
I think (Looking out the window at the distant haze of Seattle) that is simply not the case, DW. Three problems here: The moral problem, the political problem, and the tactical problem.
The Moral problem is: “What should we expect in terms of conduct, behaviour, training and integrity from our police forces?” You can call it the “Defining the difference between a police force and a gang of regime protection thugs” (or, as in the case of Chicago, Los Angeles and so on, just thugs).
The Political Problem: Police are at the beck-and-call of prosecution agencies, and those agencies include district attorneys and their lackeys, often these are elected positions, though sometimes they’re appointed by elected officials instead. DA’s get their brownies not from achieving justice, but by winning convictions. This runs directly counter to the ostensible job of police, which is to keep the peace in stressful situations, deter crime, investigate crime, and yes, arrest criminals in order to protect the public. Note that “arrest”, “Shoot” and other forms of violence are only supposed to be TOOLS for that primary mission of keeping the peace. Unfortunately, PD’s have to answer to DA’s, whose sole mission is to win lots of victories so they can run for mayor, governor, president…
This IS a basic conflict of interest and it’s one that has evolved/mutated from what that relationship is structurally SUPPOSED to be.
On the Tactical problem, we saw that play out. First officer on scene did the right thing; he got the guy to park, and was going to let the guy sleep it off/sober up enough to at least understand what was going on-the first cop’s approach was focused on keeping the peace. The second cop shows up, and HE wants to make brownie points with a hot-hot-DUI bust. This is where the problem began-you can call it an allegiance issue, one officer was more dedicated to the keeping-the-peace approach, while the other had more fealty to the ‘making brownie points with easy busts” approach.
From that point, things escalated and got out of control, with a confused man being assaulted by cops, less than a month after he likely saw a man STRANGLED TO DEATH BY MEN WITH BADGES on television/internet.
Pretty much, the guy had reason to believe he was in a lethal situation facing two cops, and he reacted in a manner that is suitable. Unfortunately, (well for him, anyway) he grabbed the Taser instead of the Service Automatic.
Either way, when you brandish a gun at someone keyed, primed and trained for a gunfight, there’s going to be a gunfight, and if you’re not aware, the gunfighter with the body-armor and the service automatic is likely to win.
Depending on which officer it was, if it was the second officer (the guy who basically turned a de-escalated situation into an existential conflict) who was fired, then the public is slightly safer. If it was the guy who tried to de-escalate at the beginning, not so much-because the police we should WANT are the ones who will use all those OTHER tools in their belt-like minimum force, and reasonable approach, and not-getting-froggy without a damned good reason.
but the root of the problem, and it’s what led to the circumstance of the shooting, is squarely in the Political side. As long as the Police are culturally and semi-unofficially (or even officially) beholden to the Prosecuting arm, and as long as we keep electing and promoting prosecutors who go after ‘low hanging fruit’ with a ‘winning is everything’ approach, we’re going to see repeat performances.
thejeff
The dependency goes the other way too though: Prosecutors who turn on the cops can face lack of cooperation from police, leading to them not getting those convictions they want. It’s a feedback loop.
And one supported, at least tacitly, by much of the US population. We see some cracks now, at least with the most egregious abuse, but I’m not sure it reaches the level of breaking that cycle – of not preferring DAs who get lots of crooks convicted, for example.
Meagan
That’s an insightful point, that is for bringing that up
Meagan
*thanks for
David M Willis
did you seriously fucking answer a sarcastic “yeah it’s better that the cops murder a guy just in case he does crime later” with “actually it’s better that the cops murder a guy just in case it makes their bosses cranky” but in like sixty fucking paragraphs, wtf
Bathymetheus
I don’t see how you get that Mr. Ball is promoting cops killing people from that essay.
And I for one wholeheartedly agree that DAs are in a conflict of interest position. It has been a concern of mine for several years, and it’s not just in the U.S. Unfortunately Western legal systems seems to be unwilling to admit it’s even a problem, let alone do anything about it.
Meagan
Yeah I’m with bathymetheus here, that is not what I got out of this.
Fart Captor
Daniel you’re extremely uniformed and should sit tf down
DAs are not why cops murder people. DAs are why they so rarely face prosecution. Police Unions are why they get rehired and rarely get fired to begin with. White supremacy is why they murder with impunity. They do it because they WANT TO AND THEY CAN
Daniel M Ball
Fart Captor, it isn’t just white cops who behave badly, and you’re really going to go with black, hispanic, or asian cops being all ‘white power’ you’re frankly a fundamental part of the problem, because you’re excusing inexcusable behavior by claiming mass mental illness.
that’s not only unrealistic, it’s unstable. Are there bullies in uniform? yer godamned right there are. Are some of them racist? again, goddamned right there are, and where are the majority of these incidents happening, Fart?
Yeah, look it up. You can’t swing a dead cat in political circles without hitting someone who got their position by going after poor people using cops to pad their resumes with high conviction numbers, and what kind of person, do you suppose, benefits from, and works as an enabler for, that kind of conflict of interest? Racism is essentially unethical, it is placing blame on some group of ‘others’ for one’s failures and failings, tarring others with one’s own defects and dehumanizing other citizens to elevate oneself.
Do you suppose MAYBE there’s a problem here, where the demand for higher conviction rates meets a lowered ethical standard to create the ideal environment for cultivating unethical, morally weak, status-driven human predators? All racists are bullies, not all bullies are racist, but bullies prey on those who can’t defend themselves or who lack adequate defenses.
does that NOT sound like the situation we’re looking at with that shooting? One officer wanted to let the man sleep it off, the other went for the ‘way easy bust’ that wasn’t.
This issue is a moral one, it is also a political one, and I guarantee if you remove the toxic incentives and cultivating environment for bullies, you’ll push the racists out. OTOH, if you keep obsessign about skin color? they’ll just shift their feathers until you can’t see them anymore and stay right where they’re at, festering and breeding.
Fart Captor
??
BBCC
Black, Hispanic and Asian cops who unequally enforce the law on Black people (and others who experience unequal enforcement like Hispanic and Indigenous people) are upholding white supremacy because “unequally enforce the law on Black people” is a very large PART of white supremacy. Getting rid of toxic incentives to get convictions will undoubtedly help but tackling white supremacy is also part of the problem – and so are you if you don’t see it.
Fart Captor
Bill, what the fuck country do you live in where you think a LAWSUIT impacts police behavior in any meaningful way? WRONGFUL DEATH suits don’t stop them. The CITY pays for it and the cop maybe gets some paid leave.
THIS IS WHAT ALL THOSE INCONVENIENT PROTESTS ARE FOR, IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING
Regalli
And the wrongful death suits are necessary because they won’t even get charged for killing people unless MASSIVE NATIONAL PROTESTS occur to force the department’s hand. And even then, they will almost certainly be found not guilty, because the standard to determine if the use of force was reasonable is I’m pretty sure based in how THEY PERCEIVED threat levels. It’s also clearly a different standard, in practice if not in writing, to the one black people acting in genuinely life-or-death situations are held to. (Case in point: Marissa Alexander.)
thejeff
Though the other messed up side of the Marissa Alexander case was the argument that she didn’t really feel threatened because she fired a warning shot, rather than shooting to kill.
I mean, I’m skeptical it would have worked out well for her if she had shot him, but the idea she would have had a better case if she had is scary too.
Bicycle Bill
The lawsuits I’m thinking of are civil suits, not criminal suits, where the victim (or the victim’s family) come lloking for compensation from anyone who had anything to do with the incident in any way, from the mayor to the individual members of the city council to the police/fire commission to the police chief to the shift commander to the cop himself … and most lawsuits like these — a civil case for money damages — would likely NOT fall under a city’s insurance policy.
Not to mention that many of the smaller communities where something like this was more likely to happen are self-insured, which means that yes, the city pays, eventually. But where does the city get that money, and how much do taxes and assessments go up (or what doesn’t get funded any more) because of it?
thejeff
This is common now in relation to police killings or even injuries. People win civil lawsuits against the police even when there aren’t charges all the time.
None of this seems to have changed policing practices.
That suggests to me that police departments don’t respond to the threat of lawsuits in the way you’re suggesting
Regalli
National protests have not been enough to make police deescalate and own their shit.
INTERNATIONAL protests have not been enough to make police deescalate and own their shit.
Why the fuck do you think lawsuits are gonna change their behavior? As thejeff says, they have occurred and that has not actually done shit to decrease the number of police killing civilians. For a start, police are still allowed to get away with more violence than civilians are by the courts because of their perception of threats. But even when the police and a family settle out of court, or a court finds in favor of the family, I point you to the following article by the Washington Post, who did a yearlong study of wrongful death claims involving the police over the prior decade, and money awarded to survivors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/11/03/uneven-justice/
Police departments can settle for over a million dollars. On average, those that go to court average more like $500,000 – though that’s probably in large part because a whole lot of cases get dismissed because there was, to cite an early case, ‘no evidence that the police department should have known the officer had a propensity to use excessive violence.’
That article was published in 2015. If million-dollar settlements for clear but-for the officer shooting them, this person would not be dead claims are not making police stop killing people, why the fuck would wrongful death suits with less obvious causation make an impact on them? If million-dollar settlements are not making officers STOP KILLING PEOPLE, then what the fuck WILL?
Chris Phoenix
As a matter of fact, the first cop on-scene just had him drive(!) into a parking space to sleep it off. Then he got some instruction over the radio and muttered “Don’t wanna deal with this dude right now.” I don’t know if he was referring to the victim or to his fellow officer who was about to arrive. Then, said fellow officer shows up, conducts a field sobriety check, and decides to arrest the victim for DUI.
So the first cop on-scene was definitely being chill and apparently was not even going to remove the guy from the parking lot – just let him sleep it off in his car and then drive away.
adam Black
By your logic, every drunk person must be arrested on the spot, lest they decide to drive later
Regalli
I didn’t say something when I saw that comment the other day, and I really should have. The onus shouldn’t be on someone who’s drunk and trying to sleep it off – and he’d moved to a parking space from the drive-through, so I’m pretty sure he would’ve responded to reasonable requests* – to not get killed by someone whose job it allegedly is to keep people safe. Rayshard Brooks was one of the people included in that statement. If you must have an armed police force – and situations that are truly life-threatening enough to merit that are pretty rare, especially if we had decent gun control in play – then the BARE MINIMUM should be that those weapons only come out in an actual crisis, with someone actively and seriously dangerous, after every chance at deescalation has been thoroughly exhausted. It’s been very clear, for years, that white people in particular will consistently perceive black people in particular as ‘dangerous’ with no basis whatsoever. There are studies about it, in addition to the obvious trend. Kids get perceived as older than they are, because racism. Hands in pockets get perceived as a threat, because racism. It is not safe to have people be given lethal weapons and license to use them when there is active sociological evidence that their perception of danger is fundamentally skewed to endanger innocent people. And given there are teachers who work with kids with significant developmental and cognitive disabilities – kids who are, sometimes, considered actively dangerous – and don’t escalate to violence, given there are retail workers who deal with belligerent shits on a regular basis and don’t escalate to violence, it is absolutely possible to deescalate nonviolently in most situations.
For fuck’s sake, the white supremacist who committed a mass shooting at a black church was taken in alive and the officers let him get lunch before bringing him in. If an active mass murderer can be subdued safely then why the FUCK is it acceptable that the response to someone sleeping in a parking lot was escalation to lethal force?
* So we’re clear here, though? A reasonable request is ‘stay asleep and don’t drive til you’re sober’, or ‘would you like a ride home?’ And I would not judge any black person who didn’t feel safe accepting a ride home from the police given the track record there. I freely admit I know nothing about Georgia law, but here in Maryland? Not only is it entirely legal to sleep off intoxication in your car parked somewhere safe, it’s encouraged over trying to drive home impaired. We have a pile of case law about how you can leave the car running during that time, even, so people can leave the heat running in the winter and such. (It’s a six-factor test that basically boils down to ‘is it reasonable to think you could actually drive in the position you were found in?’) Asleep in a parking lot – asleep in a drive through, even, and if he managed to fall asleep there I’ve gotta assume that means it was closed so the distinction doesn’t really matter – is basically the safest place someone who’s too drunk to get home safe could be. Or rather, it SHOULD.
Chris Phoenix
He wasn’t actually in the one-lane channel part of the drive through – he was in the parking lot leading up to it, and cars were going around him. So he wasn’t blocking cars but he was in the way and not properly parked. Making him move was reasonable.
I don’t know if he was asleep from extreme intoxication, or maybe from working three jobs, or both. The meter showed 108 which is 5 drinks for a 200 lb person.
Stifyn Baker
I work in a school for children with Social and emotional disorders. Some of those children are habitually violent, and my colleagues and I are exposed to dangerous situations most days. Our training specifically covers de-escalation, with escalation into physical restraint ideally to be used less than 5% of the time. We are also trained to use restraint techniques which, if applied properly, don’t hurt the person restrained. If the child being restrained is hurt or injured, then the immediate response is to investigate whether the staff applied the restraint appropriately, or whether retraining is needed. And we are only teachers. We aren’t law enforcement. So if they can do it for us…
I also live in a country that responded to a mass shooting in a school (almost 25 years ago, now) by BANNING OUTRIGHT all private handgun ownership. Result? Almost no shootings, and no mass shootings at all. Because yes, “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns,” BUT THAT’S KIND OF THE POINT – and if you outlaw guns AND make them difficult to get hold of, then the number of outlaws who have guns is VERY LOW, and our police are not armed except in rare cases. We also have a legal system that tends NOT to protect police officers who cause death in the line of duty, with said officers facing suspension, investigation, having to produce evidence to justify the death as unavoidable, and the likely possibility of termination of employment and criminal charges in a justice system that often wants to make an example out of police who break the law. None of this is said with the intention of being smug or preachy – we still have massive amounts of institutionalised racism and high (and rising) levels of violent crime in the UK, because people are people, but our biggest problem is knife crime, not gun crime, and it’s less easy to escalate violence with a knife into MASS violence with a knife.
Rose by Any Other Name
I mean… yeah?
A goodly portion of Americans want some gun control laws that actually do stuff. All studies worldwide prove that the NRA’s claims about gun control laws benefiting criminals are BS. Only people who ignore actual data believe otherwise.
As far as the second amendment, that’s another case of ignorance winning out. That amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to maintain a militia to defend the state. AKA the National Guard. Constitutionally, as long as a state maintains a National Guard, they can ban all other guns, full stop.
Believe me, no one is more frustrated with American politics than Americans.
BarerMender
I’ve had that done to me. I was stopped for speeding in Georgia. They checked every state and found I had an outstanding ticket in Pennsylvania. The cop was pissed off and did everything he could to cause trouble. I had marks around my wrists for some time after they took the cuffs off. On top of everything else, they gave me four tickets, impounded my car, and added 10 mph to my actual speed. They actually did that thing where they counted my money and chose the fine. Cost me $1400. Fortunately, my nerves, for some strange reason, are not as sensitive to direct pressure as the average person’s seem to be. Those nerve holds smart alecks like to demonstrate don’t work on me.
bryy
Someone’s about to be fired.
Yumi
But she got her so many new followers…
NinjaNick
You might be right. Robin looks livid, at least.
Undrave
Maybe she wanted to crack heads herself?
Sirksome
How can you tell? I kinda thought this was implying Robin was actually worried about Becky and came to check on her.
Inscrutablejane
That was my initial impression, but I’m second-guessing myself now
Inscrutablejane
Heck yeah, finally out of moderation purgatory with my non-deadname email!!!
BarerMender
Nice.
Ana Chronistic
Congrats on freedom from your deadname!!
clif
I don’t think there was any need for second guessing. Robin was so concerned that she jumped out of her car and left the door open as she went to investigate. If she was annoyed instead of concerned she would have taken the time to shut her car door.
Jamie
Note to self: next time I’m annoyed at someone, leave the car door open so that people can tell.
clif
Not sure, but I think that’s backwards. I believe proper etiquette demands that you slam the car door to signal annoyance.
Ana Chronistic
TWIST:
It’s a different DeSanto
clif
That … would be a twist.
Aviana
I don’t think there’s enough detail in that last panel to determine how livid she looks… And I don’t think Robin would be mad at Becky for using the twitter that way. Even a stern talking to seems out of character for her.
Mra
Is she going to fire Becky for sending out an SOS on her twitter? That’s messed up, Becky was in a real difficult position there.
Mra
I don’t think Robin is totally Heartless, just more Thoughtless
Miri
Given that her response to Becky’s dad being free was to try to protect her from anxiety by not telling her while also hiring a 24/7 security team to shadow her, I think it’s fair to say that she cares.
SuperZero
And also that she’s bad at stuff.
BrokenEye, the True False Prophet
Becks can run a campaign for her own damn self, then.
He Who Abides
She’s too young.
Undrave
That second panel is powerful stuff…
NinjaNick
Yum, pancakes. With butter and syrup on top.
Undrave
Is Leslie gonna spring for REAL maple syrup?
Sirksome
Does Robin care? Real question cause I’m still on the fence with her.
Mra
She can be aggravating, but she is not heartless.
DailyBrad
She’s been shown to have a genuine liking for Becky, seemingly.
Sam
She does, yes. She hired Becky’s bodyguards for a reason even if they were terrible. Robin’s issue isn’t that she is outright heartless but that she doesn’t often think many things through or how harmful said actions are or will be most of the time.
Nono
Becky, no! Waffles are the true option!
Diane
Why not both? I want both…
Bicycle Bill
Waffles are just non-skid pancakes.
Needfuldoer