Search Box

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

New police procedural

As time went on, the story of the Michael Brown killing gradually changed. At first, the media quoted eyewitnesses who claimed either that Michael Brown was shot in the back as he was running away, or that he was shot when his arms were upraised.

However, the autopsy commissioned by the Brown family found that he had been shot from in front, not in back. One of the original eyewitnesses (Brown's partner in that convenience store robbery) turned out to have a previous conviction for filing a false police report.

The video from the convenience store robbery gave the lie to the "gentle giant" description which had circulated right after the shooting. And more than a dozen new witnesses came forward to say that the officer's account was correct: that Brown had reached into the police car to punch Officer Wilson, walked away, then turned around and charged him.

As these conflicting accounts began to emerge, the media started to lose interest in the actual evidence (though they still gave full coverage to the protests). But the shifting evidence didn't stop certain people from sticking to the original narrative. Among them is Al Sharpton.

At Michael Brown's funeral last week, Al Sharpton said "America, it's time to deal with policing," and "This will be remembered as the time of change," calling for "Congress to have legislation about guidelines in policing."

So, what exactly are the changes in store for the police? Given the way the incident seems to have gone down (and I emphasize "seems," as all the evidence isn't in yet), here are some of the guidelines Sharpton probably has in mind:

Police will no longer be allowed to ask pedestrians not to walk down the middle of the road, even if they're holding up traffic.

Police will no longer be allowed to object when someone reaches in to the patrol car to punch them in the face and reach for their guns.

If a man charges them, police are no longer allowed to use their guns to defend themselves, even if the man is 6' 4" and 290 pounds.

And if by chance a policeman does defend himself, the governor of his state should call for a vigorous prosecution, regardless of whether the officer has been charged with a crime.

Ferguson has also set a wonderful precedent for the media to follow. At least one major outlet -- like CNN -- should print a map to the policeman's house for all to see.

Finally, justice.

10 comments:

Glen Filthie said...

I get that the civil libertarians are concerned about police brutality. I know they are very uncomfortable with cops gearing up to handle civil revolts with armour and heavy weaponry. I understand that concern.

My question to the cop haters is this: what do you expect them to do? Would you go into that cesspool with only a squad car and a .38? You would be nuts. They would tear you to shreds whether you are black OR white.

I know about half a dozen old world cops. They all took early retirement the second they were eligible. They all forbade their children and their friends' children from joining the force - saying the job is now impossible and if anything happens the only victim will be the cop. They have horror stories that would raise your hair. That thin blue line is getting thinner every year, folks. I know what is on the other side of that line and I am gearing up on guns and ammo too!

Unless something changes I see the future of law enforcement going like Britain: the unarmed bobbies are made up of a politically correct precise ratio of men, women and visible minorities. If you are getting your brains beat out by a chav, or a gang of moslem 'youths', soccer hooligans - or some other failed liberal social experiment - they will stand idly by while your life's blood drains away. They won't make a move until they have enough officers to peacefully overwhelm the perp. If you defend yourself, you will be charged and labelled a vigilante. Violent crime will escalate. Shoot - it's already going that way. THAT is the future of law enforcement...and the only good thing I see in it is that Al Sharpton's negroes are going to get the worst of it. It serves them right too.

John Craig said...

Glen --
I was talking to someone the other day, not a liberal, and he voiced the opinion the most cops were dicks. (I disagree; the vast majority I've met strike me as good guys, though I've run across a couple who were needlessly unpleasant.) But I took note because, as I said, this guy is not a knee-jerk.

I later relayed that opinion to someone else I know who is a soldier. He laughed. "Of course a lot of cops are dicks," he said, "they have to be. Who would you want in that job, a bunch of high school teachers?"

Anonymous said...

I always thought cops were dicks.

Ha! at what your son said

I work in a field which attracts liberals. Just imagining us walking the beat had me laughing. It would be a joke. People would walk all over us.

Your brought a refreshing perspective to my attention. Thanks for that.

Andrew

John Craig said...

Andrew --
Thank you.

I've heard all sorts of horror stories about women on the beat. As you know, police departments across the country have made an effort to be inclusive, and many of those efforts have backfired, for the reasons yo mentioned. There are evidently a fair number of veteran cops who just refuse to be partnered up with a woman because they know the woman won't have their backs in a touch situation.

Glen Filthie said...

It's always been my opinion that it takes one to know one, John - and that it takes two to tango.

I have seen a couple of the viral videos where people are outraged because a cop shot a dog, for example - but you can see in the vid that the boys are deployed, trying to handle a situation - and buddy is mouthing off at them and menacing them with his rottweiller. That guy was a dick, in my opinion, and shouldn't have to put up with that.
Or the cop in Ferguson telling the negroes to stay back and brandishing an assault rifle - while they crowded him, taunted him and tried to scare the chit out of him.
We are all dicks at some point, either from a bad day, or getting up on the wrong side of the bed or whatever. As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of people living in glass houses that are out there throwing stones.

John Craig said...

Glen --
I agree with you. As I said, I disagree with the guy who said that. And I've seen that same vid, and agree about the dog shooting. And it's always seemed to me that in the vast majority of cases where police are accused of brutality, their use of force was justified.

And the vast majority of copsI've met have been polite and respectful. On the other hand, I've personally run into a couple of cops who came across like hard-ons when there was absolutely no point to it, and all it takes is a few cowboys like that to give departments a bad reputation.

Anonymous said...

I personally think that the police officer was justified in shooting Brown (who was a thug, having no respect for the law). When I watched his parents on t.v., the Today Show, Brown's father, looked like a not-so-nice guy, questioning what he was like, how he impacted his son. I didn't buy one thing that they said about their son or the police, literally having zero respect for their son. Police exist to help keep social order. Their son broke the law, acted like a thug, and got shot and killed as a result of his aggressiveness, his stupidity. It's unfortunate that Brown got killed but, he contributed to his own demise.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
That's my impression of the circumstances and personalities involved as well.

We still have to wait for all the evidence to come in, but so far, that sure is what it looks like.

Chris Mallory said...

Sorry Glen, the cops are paid to put up with mouthy citizens and the justified scorn that honest men heap upon them. As for your "squad car and a .38" comment. No, I would put them on foot and give them a radio and nothing else. Disarm the thugs. If a government employee is not held to a higher standard than a citizen, then the power is upside down. They work for us. Cops do not have "rights", they have delegated powers. Powers that the citizens can take back at any time.

I am proudly, NOT law abiding. I am honest. I don't cause harm to others. But I don't blindly follow the edicts of a bunch of people with such low morals and suspect character that they entered into government employment.

bluffcreek1967 said...

In response to Chris Mallory: If all you gave to the cops was a radio and nothing else, they really wouldn't be able to defend themselves or even you! Hell, if they were all on foot, they'd probably be delayed in getting to your emergency as well.

You might say in response that you don't need the cops to come 'rescue' you, and perhaps not. But there's a lot of people that are not prepared or armed as well as you either (I'm assuming this, of course).

Cops need not only need adequate weapons in order to enforce the law, they need SUPERIOR weapons in some cases as the North Hollywood LAPD bank robbery proved! Yes, some agencies have maybe went overboard, but a well-equipped officer needs at least a sidearm, shotgun/rifle, baton, pepper spray, Taser and maturity as well as good judgment (which I would say are an officer's most effective weapon).

A police officer without weapons or 'tools of the trade' is for the most part useless. Even in England, the cops now carry impact weapons, including handguns (for some), which they had never routinely carried in the past. Times have changed, and the world has become a more dangerous place.