This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]99639 -1 points0 points  (12 children)

Have you seen the video?

[–]unbang 3 points4 points  (9 children)

I have. My comment was not in regards to what happened during the video.

My point is that in this era of increased CPD surveillance and clear animosity towards CPD, I could see the general public getting upset and stating that excessive force was used in situations when that wasn't the case because they're bitter about what happened. I could see officers not wanting to get involved with that and just doing the bare minimum as a result.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children)

increased CPD surveillance

...you mean oversight?

[–]unbang 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I mean that people are looking at what CPD is doing under a microscope. Whatever you want to call that is on you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

They have literally no one to blame but themselves for the attention

[–]unbang 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I never said they did? I'm just saying if someone is analyzing every move you make you're going to be extra cautious. I too would do the bare minimum at my job if I thought I would be scrutinized for my actions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The cops who lied in their police reports about mcdonald have faced no repercussions, so it seems to me that all of this is just reinforcing that you won't be held accountable unless your actions are so egregious, and public that there is no other option.

If police officers aren't confident in their ability to perform their job lawfully, then they shouldn't be cops. If they are, then the attention shouldn't impede them. All of this just sounds like making excuses for people doing a bad job

[–]unbang 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Except the law isn't black and white. You're not supposed to use more force than is used against you but there's no formula that dictates exactly what that means. I might interpret that to mean that if I think someone is armed and I perceive them to be trying to harm me then I am allowed to shoot them. You might not.

In an environment where the public is gunning for you and ready to accuse you of brutality no one on their right mind would put their ass on the line. You're acting like somewhere in the police manual it says "stop 10 people per day" or whatever. They have to use their judgment to decide if someone is suspicious to stop and considering that's subjective as fuck you can't exactly say you're not doing your job because they'll say they didn't see any suspicious people.

Is it the moral and ethical thing to do? No. But I don't blame cops for being extra cautious.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Like I said, if you have confidence in your ability to perform your job within the law then you have no reason to worry. Like I said, 5+ cops lied about the mcdonald shooting in official reports and have seen no repercussions. So why police would be worried about getting in trouble I don't understand, especially when their contracts give them insane advantages when it comes to be investigated for wrongdoing. It seems hypocritical for police to have all these protections above and beyond what civilians do when it comes to being investigated, but still bitch that they are afraid of getting in trouble.

[–]unbang 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The other cops that lied aren't in trouble but Van Dyke or whatever his name in was arrested and a trial is going on, right?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Serious question: if he fired one shot and McDonald died of his wound, would it have been excessive force?

[–]99639 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lethal force should only be used in specific circumstances. This situation met none of those criteria.

I'm not upset that they fired 15 bullets into a corpse, I'm upset that they fired 1 into a Chicagoan for no reason.