A Baltimore Facepalm


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

So generally I'm pretty critical of the Baltimore police department because I think they're pretty corrupt and prone to controversy.  However, I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and it's due now.  This isn't cutting edge current news but I was learning more about what happened today and felt inspired to share this.

A couple of weeks ago a woman was fatally shot while engaging in a shootout with police.  Local news article here.

If you read the article it refers to the traffic stop that this woman failed to appear in court for, and was one of the reasons officers were there.  Well, what happened with that traffic stop was that she was pulled over for not having tags, and as it turned out she also didn't have insurance.  She tried to play the "your laws don't apply to me" game and lost.  Now, if you watch the video or listen to the audio, this woman was being difficult, confrontational, even threatening.  Despite all of that, the officers were trying to give her a chance to handle the situation without escalating it.  They were very professional and calm even while she was telling her kid in the car that the officers wanted to kill them.

Mentally unbalanced, much?

So to nobody's surprise she met her fate trying to shoot at police because they were trying to arrest her for a couple of traffic related misdemeanors. 

Why am I bringing this up?  Because BLM is using this as an example of police racism and killing black people.  The problem is there's -zero- credibility in that claim.  This woman was clearly looking for trouble, looking for violence, and was in the process of brainwashing her kids to be the same way.  BLM no longer represents citizens with a legitimate gripe.  It's a full blown hate group now.  (No, this wasn't the straw that broke that camel's back, it's just a good example of how we know that movement is irreparably broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

she met her fate trying to shoot at police because they were trying to arrest her for a couple of traffic related misdemeanors. 

Not really trying to derail the topic here, but this illustrates the principle that all laws  (and, indeed, all government) are based on (the threat of) lethal force. The case involves traffic misdemeanors, but even a late library fine could result in one's death. All you need do is resist long enough and the state will send armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges and they will kill you.

In this case, it seems, as others have noted elsewhere, this woman was actively committing suicide by cop. She used the fact above to her "advantage".

The Constitution, according to John Adams, was written for a moral and religious people. It is sufficient, he said, to the governance of no other. 'Tseems to me that we have reached a point where the majority of the people are no longer able to govern themselves and need a strong man to control them.

Is this the reason that the Nephites, the Israelites, the Jews, and other nations were destroyed: they couldn't govern themselves, so the Lord brought in people who would do it for them?

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

It's a full blown hate group now.

I've been saying that all along.  You should read The Truth Behind the Black Lives Matter Movement and the War on Police.

https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Behind-Matter-Movement-Police/dp/1944783520/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471455031&sr=1-1&keywords=black+lives+matter+and+the+war+on+police

 

It is kind of expensive though.  I'd loan you my buddies copy if you were local.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mirkwood thanks for the recommendation.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

You know, I really hate to say this, but with the way this woman was  telling her kids that cops were only out to kill black people and that they should fight the police, her being removed from their lives may have been good for them on some level.  I feel horrible saying it, but if this means they can be raised by someone who will teach them right, then it's hard to be too broken up over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Not really trying to derail the topic here, but this illustrates the principle that all laws  (and, indeed, all government) are based on (the threat of) lethal force. The case involves traffic misdemeanors, but even a late library fine could result in one's death. All you need do is resist long enough and the state will send armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges and they will kill you.

In this case, it seems, as others have noted elsewhere, this woman was actively committing suicide by cop. She used the fact above to her "advantage".

The Constitution, according to John Adams, was written for a moral and religious people. It is sufficient, he said, to the governance of no other. 'Tseems to me that we have reached a point where the majority of the people are no longer able to govern themselves and need a strong man to control them.

Is this the reason that the Nephites, the Israelites, the Jews, and other nations were destroyed: they couldn't govern themselves, so the Lord brought in people who would do it for them?

Lehi

or let them destroy themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, unixknight said:

@mirkwood thanks for the recommendation.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

You know, I really hate to say this, but with the way this woman was  telling her kids that cops were only out to kill black people and that they should fight the police, her being removed from their lives may have been good for them on some level.  I feel horrible saying it, but if this means they can be raised by someone who will teach them right, then it's hard to be too broken up over it.

"her being removed from their lives may have been good for them on some level"

Celebrate much????

----look who came around to realize there are actually people who we are all better off without. Funny thing is this case is tame compared to what police routinely deal with. She just chose the ending that made the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2016 at 7:18 AM, LeSellers said:

The case involves traffic misdemeanors, but even a late library fine could result in one's death. All you need do is resist long enough and the state will send armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges and they will kill you.

So, I'm a big fan of your overall notion here, yeah, laws are enforced with force.  But no, your last statement is absolute hogwash hooey nonsense.  

Cops know how to put people in cuffs without killing them, while they are resisting.  After the reassuring click of the cuffs, you are free to resist those cuffs to the extent that your mortal abilities allow.  No need for any shiny badge man to employ deadly force at all.  I'm told by more than one of them, that they actually get a kick out of it when someone in cuffs tries to run.  Sort of breaks up the monotony of the night.  

The whole "resist and die" thing is more a deal of North Korea or Iran or Palestine or similar places.  Cops here kill folks when they believe lives are on the line.  And there are a lot of ways people resist without doing that.   

I mean, I'm facebook buddies with folks who study and practice and teach and urge resisting da man.  It involves knowing the law, knowing how to argue, and knowing what actions to take and what actions to not take.  I watch their youtube videos.  They eventually end up off resisting and nobody cares, or off resisting behind bars, or sometimes even off resisting in front of a judge.  Ain't no being killed happening.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

"her being removed from their lives may have been good for them on some level"

Celebrate much????
 

Not celebrating her death.  Just pointing out that she was a destructive influence in her childrens' lives.  I'd have preferred that she just surrendered and the kids raised by someone sane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:18 AM, LeSellers said:

All you need do is resist long enough and the state will send armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges and they will kill you.

 

@LeSellers I have 19 years as a patrol officer.  19 years on the streets on the frontline of making arrests.  I've arrested A LOT of people who resisted arrest.  Like....dozens, some of whom assaulted me during said process.  None of them got shot.  None of them died.  Get your facts straight before posting ignorance.

Edited by mirkwood
added emphasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
16 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@LeSellers I have 19 years as a patrol officer.  19 years on the streets on the frontline of making arrests.  I've arrested A LOT of people who resisted arrest.  Like....dozens, some of whom assaulted me during said process.  None of them got shot.  None of them died.  Get your facts straight before posting ignorance.

In fairness to @mirkwood I can't imagine in my wildest dreams him "killing people" without them threatening his life or that of an innocent person. Even if they did threaten his own life, I think he'd use every possible means to avoid seriously hurting them and/or killing them first.

Even if he did have to kill them in self defense or defense of another innocent person!-, I don't think he'd enjoy the process. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

But no, your last statement is absolute hogwash hooey nonsense.  

Cops know how to put people in cuffs without killing them, while they are resisting.  

While your second statement here is true, that is not what is used lately.  Explain why the education department decided it was a good idea to call the SWAT team to go collect on unpaid student debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU_MpXRD2-E

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/08/dept-of-education-swat-team-up

And the man who was "SWATted" wasn't even the one who owed the debt, but his estranged wife was the one who owed the debt.

Do you still believe police aren't easily convinced to use excessive force?

ADD'L info: The DoE updated information to state that their own OIG office served the warrant, not the local police.  But the local police were asked to provide a patrol vehicle for local police presence.

They also stated that the warrant was served for a crimminal investigation, not a loan payment.

Why that doesn't matter:

1) Why does the DoE have armed men at all?  Why do they have their own enforcement arm that is as tactically equipped as a SWAT team?
2) If they were serving some other crimminal investigation warrant, why did the homeowner get served paperwork regarding his estranged wife's unpaid student loans?  Why did it take several hours of searching the home to verify that she no longer lived there and was not present?

Are you certain people will not be killed for minor infractions?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty certain.  I mean, people will begin an encounter with the police for something minor, or not even an infraction at all.  But other stuff happens, and it is the other stuff that results in death.  

"Do you still believe police aren't easily convinced to use excessive force?"
That's a totally different question.  To some people, stern words from a cop are 'excessive force'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mirkwood said:

@LeSellers I have 19 years as a patrol officer.  19 years on the streets on the frontline of making arrests.  I've arrested A LOT of people who resisted arrest.  Like....dozens, some of whom assaulted me during said process.  None of them got shot.  None of them died.  Get your facts straight before posting ignorance.

With all due respect, it strikes me that a lot of this depends on the nature of the resistance.  If a citizen/miscreant decides (s)he does not want to be physically subdued and uses a firearm to prevent that, I'm sure you--and any other conscientious officer of the law--would of necessity bring out the firearms mighty quickly. 

That said, this lady was (pardon the pun) gunning for a Darwin award; and it seems she got one.  I hope her antics were the result of mental illness; because if her thought process is at all mainstream then we're a lot closer to an armed insurrection than I thought we were.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 If a citizen/miscreant decides (s)he does not want to be physically subdued and uses a firearm to prevent that, I'm sure you--and any other conscientious officer of the law--would of necessity bring out the firearms mighty quickly. 

 

That has gone wayyyy past resisting to aggravated assault at minimum...and yes, deadly force is now in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, pretty certain.  I mean, people will begin an encounter with the police for something minor, or not even an infraction at all.  But other stuff happens, and it is the other stuff that results in death.  

"Do you still believe police aren't easily convinced to use excessive force?"
That's a totally different question.  To some people, stern words from a cop are 'excessive force'.  

An old man woke up to a bunch of armed men in his bedroom.  He reached for his gun in his nightstand.  He was shot to death.

It turned out that the SWAT team that raided his home received an anonymous tip that the police took no effort to verify.  They sent the SWAT team in immediately to drop the boom on a major drug deal and only found this old man in his underwear barely waking up to all the noise.

That's what I mean by excessive force.

While I will admit that the vast majority of police individually are fine upstanding men and women, the system that they work under has serious flaws.  Put together the infinite number of rules of behavior they're required to remember while they could easily be shot for simply pulling someone over for a speeding ticket and add in the massive bureaucracy limiting their effectiveness and on and on...  Then they're given very clear orders to bring someone in and they don't know too much about them... that's just a recipe for disaster.

Here's another example:

A man's parents were worried about their adult son.  He had some blood sugar issue and they realized he had not taken his medication for the day.  They couldn't get a hold of him.  So, they called the police to help find him. The police gave chase as he was on the road.  He was behaving and driving oddly (not dangerously) because of his medication issue.  Forgive me if I forget the details of this case that was about 7 years old.  Long story short, the police killed him.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Maybe...or maybe he just meant the police just like to kill people.

Perhaps, but I read him as saying that it is the overall body politic that pronounces--through the passage of a law--that citizens who refuse to comply with that law must ultimately change their minds or die.  Take Eric Garner, for example.  Assuming law enforcement followed proper procedures, it wasn't the NYPD who killed him; it was the citizens of New York who banned the sale of loose cigarettes and then tasked the thin blue line to enforce that ban at the risk of their own, and/or any potential offenders' lives.  The citizenry knew, when the law was passed, that the enforcement process would probably result in at least a few deaths; and it is they who must answer for Garner's death.  The cops were just trying to effect the people's will, and not get killed while doing it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

... I read him as saying that it is the overall body politic that pronounces--through the passage of a law--that citizens who refuse to comply with that law must ultimately change their minds or die. 

Knowing him as I do, that was his intent.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Maybe...or maybe he just meant the police just like to kill people.

That's "wayyyy past" anything in my original statement.

@Just_A_Guy has it pretty well right, it's the political background that defines my assertion that even a library fine would lead to the political powers sending a lot of armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges who, if you resist long enough and aggressively enough, will kill you.

Before anyone says, "There ought to be a law!", he should first ask himself, "Is this important enough to kill someone over it?"

12 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Ok, perhaps. :shrug:

You accused me of some dastardly things, and you pass it off with a shrug‽‽

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

This, in spades.  There are way too many laws on the books as it is.

The only law we need is, "Don't hurt people and don't take or break their stuff."

Anything beyond that is too much.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share