Understanding the divide white/black/blue

[micromass]

I was responding to your statement about British police.

OK, but that misses the point. I can easily find similar statements about other countries, where the police does carry guns. And I'm not really interested in this discussion either. I'm more interested in how to change this dire situation.

 

[russ_watters]

OK, but that misses the point. I can easily find similar statements about other countries, where the police does carry guns. And I'm not really interested in this discussion either. I'm more interested in how to change this dire situation.

You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot. It's a complicated issue, but so far we have the following differences listed, varying from country to country:
1. More civilians have guns (in the US).
2. More police have guns.
3. Higher violent crime rates.
And I would add:
4. Lingering racial tensions.

For your hypothesis; Are police better trained and better quality in Europe? It's a provocative hypothesis, but it isn't without logic: the fact that the US has and requires more police than most other European countries while simultaneously having it a more difficult and dangerous job means that we need to work a lot harder to get, train, retain and maintain our police forces than most European countries. It should be expected that as a result ours would be on average of lower quality.

 

[micromass]

The wikipedia article does tend to corroborate the article I linked about training though. But maybe it's paining a biased picture because of things I'm not considering?

Finland: The basic police training lasts in its entirety for 3 years.
Romania: The Romanian Police academy is located in Bucureşti. They are training only officers (Bachelor (3 years), master degree (2 years) and Dr (3+1 years)).
Abu Dhabi: One year for theoretical study and another for field work.
Connecticut: The to be officers then have to attend an 818-hour basic training course that covers various aspects of police work
Texas: Police academies typically last from 18 to 30 weeks, though there are many variations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_academy

 

[micromass]

You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot

If something I said isn't true, then please tell me.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-cops-lethal_us_565cde59e4b079b2818b8870

I need to look more into this article's sources, but this quote struck me:

For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe...

In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.

I see two basic problems here in the characterization, plus one actual and one likely legal difference:
Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and tried to take his gun. He very clearly presented a mortal threat and it would surprise me a great deal if European courts would disagree that the shooting was justified.

Most (I would assume all) police forces do have rules of engagement that dictate escalating levels of force, starting with verbal warnings, which of course American police do start with.

Next, American forces don't do "warning shots" or "shots at nonvital parts of the body" and it surprises me that other countries do. A gunshot is an inherently deadly level of force and trying to shoot at a leg (for example) is very difficult, often ineffective, can still kill and if it doesn't can irreparably maim. As such, guns are not to be used in situations where deadly force is not proscribed.

 

[russ_watters]

If something I said isn't true, then please tell me.

No, the problem with jumping around is that things you say may be true for one country but not true for another. For example, you brought up the example of the UK, which has an easy answer - they don't carry guns - but then discarded it because...you didn't like the obvious answer? I'm just asking that you recognize/accept that there is complexity to this issue. Evo's answer was a good one -- a relevant one. It may not be applicable in all countries, but it is applicable in at least one where you thought a comparison with the US relevant. So don't discard it.

 

[micromass]

No, the problem with jumping around is that things you say may be true for one country but not true for another. For example, you brought up the example of the UK, which has an easy answer - they don't carry guns - but then discarded it because...you didn't like the obvious answer? I'm just asking that you recognize/accept that there is complexity to this issue. Evo's answer was a good one -- a relevant one. It may not be applicable in all countries, but it is applicable in at least one where you thought a comparison with the US relevant. So don't discard it.

Sure, it is an obvious answer. But it didn't really tell me anything new, nor did it tell me anything I'm particularly interested in getting an answer in.

But you said:

You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot

You explain the jumping around part, and you're probably right. I still would like to hear about the "aren't always true" part.

 

[gjonesy]

The answer to that i think is a combination of variables micromass.

I would add to russ's list an extremely high turn over rate. And a very high burn out or comp out rate to boot.

I got injured and spent this last 5 years behind a desk. This year I am being separated do to unavailability because the department can't afford to pay a veteran officer to sit behind a desk and not take on full duties.

Then you get a lot of (rookies) working with less experienced officers. Going into hot areas and that is very contributory to the problem. I was a 15 year vet. Most of the guys in my unit were under 2 years. It takes about 5 years on the force to really qualify as a veteran officer.

 

[micromass]

The answer to that i think is a combination of variables micromass.

I would add to russ's list an extremely high turn over rate. And a very high burn out or comp out rate to boot.

I got injured and spent this last 5 years behind a desk. This year I am being separated do to unavailability because the department can't afford to pay a veteran officer to sit behind a desk and not take on full duties.

Then you get a lot of (rookies) working with less experienced officers. Going into hot areas and that is very contributory to the problem. I was a 15 year vet. Most of the guys in my unit were under 2 years. It takes about 5 years on the force to really qualify as a veteran officer.

Why do you think is there a very high turn over and burn out rate?

 

[MarneMath]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...e-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/

This article above essentially captures my experience with cops in a large urban city. When I was a 16, I used to work at a mechanic shop and got off late. Walking home around 10 p.m. I would be routinely stopped and asked a series of questions. The one time I refused to stop and talk, I was tackled and handcuffed. There seems something fundamental wrong with America if a)it's acceptable to do that to a teenage kid and b)police offers feel that they are justified.

A decade or so later, I've encountered many good cops. I've learned that outside the uniform, outside their beat, they are more or less decent human begins. However, in my opinion, there's something septic about the cop culture when it comes to dealing with urban environment. It seems as if there is a belief that this is a war, and that everything there is a potential threat. So if that's the case, it shouldn't be to anyone's surprise that cops become aggressive quickly. It also shouldn't be surprising that citizens in those communities become less receptive to cops.

 

[gjonesy]

Why do you think is there a very high turn over and burn out rate?

Because it is...lol I have been an LEO for over 15 years and have rarely seen an officer make it beyond 2 years. Some people just can't handle the pressure its dangerous and you get treated badly,...add to that a ridiculously low salary,... it is not very much insensitive in staying long.

I stayed because its all i ever wanted to do professionally speaking. Wanted to be a cop since i was a kid.

 

[micromass]

Because it is...lol I have been an LEO for over 15 years and have rarely seen an officer make it beyond 2 years. Some people just can't handle the pressure its dangerous and you get treated badly,...add to that a ridiculously low salary,... it is not very much insensitive in staying long.

I stayed because its all i ever wanted to do professionally speaking. Wanted to be a cop since i was a kid.

What do you think about my statement about police officers receiving too little training?

 

[gjonesy]

What do you think about my statement about police officers receiving too little training?

I agree,,,,they don't. They asked us (the veteran officers) how to better prepare rookies for the job. My suggestion was gun take away and knife take away techniques. It took 2 years to implament that training.

First they had to develop it, then approve it, ask the lawyers how to legally defend it if a technique is misused or if someone got hurt doing it.

Lots of red tape to go through its a nightmare for training staff.

 

[Astronuc]

Regarding the training aspects, I was listening to an interview with former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper says in his book To Protect and Serve: How to Fix America's Police that policing is in crisis. He says more emphasis needs to be put on community policing. He had a number of thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/10/48546...ief-has-a-plan-for-how-to-fix-americas-police

 

[OmCheeto]

I read an interesting article this morning

Police Pay Gap: Many of America's Finest Struggle on Poverty Wages
OCT 26 2014
Since then, he’s worked for three different police departments in St. Louis County, all paying between $10.50 and $12.50 an hour.

“This is not what I expected,” said Howard. “I thought being a police officer was a really good job.”

Curious for a comparison, I checked the HR department's website where I used to work. The lowest salary is for students: $11.50/hour

 

[gjonesy]

I read an interesting article this morning

Curious for a comparison, I checked the HR department's website where I used to work. The lowest salary is for students: $11.50/hour

I was a 15 year career officer my yearly salary was 33,000 before taxes, after taxes and deductions may have cleared 20 grand.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, it is an obvious answer. But it didn't really tell me anything new, nor did it tell me anything I'm particularly interested in getting an answer in.

You really should be interested in hearing all relevant answers. In any case, since it had an obvious answer, I'm curious as to why you brought up England, yet didn't provide the answer yourself?

But you said:

You explain the jumping around part, and you're probably right. I still would like to hear about the "aren't always true" part.

It's one complaint: jumping around means you make a statement/give an example that is true/relevant in one case and not true/relevant in another or vice versa; In the case of England, you heard an answer that was true for that case (a case you raised) but didn't want to accept it so you jump to another where it isn't true.

All I'm suggesting here is that you should be more open to the complexity of the issue and not be so quick to discard answers you don't like.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you think is there a very high turn over and burn out rate?

While I didn't include it in my list, I did describe the problem and cause and the relationship to training in the last paragraph of post #52.

 

[russ_watters]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...e-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/

The article suggests a fix, but I don't see it very specifically described. Can you paraphrase what the fix is?

 

[micromass]

You really should be interested in hearing all relevant answers. In any case, since it had an obvious answer, I'm curious as to why you brought up England, yet didn't provide the answer yourself?

It's one complaint: jumping around means you make a statement/give an example that is true/relevant in one case and not true/relevant in another or vice versa; In the case of England, you heard an answer that was true for that case (a case you raised) but didn't want to accept it so you jump to another where it isn't true.

All I'm suggesting here is that you should be more open to the complexity of the issue and not be so quick to discard answers you don't like.

1) Where at all did you get the notion that I didn't accept the England answer in the first place? You seem to have made that up. I never said the answer was wrong. I jumped to another example because the England answer was explained for me and I wanted to hear an explanation for the other answers.

2) Unless you think it is a good idea for cops in America not to wear guns like in England, then there must be other differences between England and America that makes it true that English police doesn't wear guns. Those are the things I'm interested in.

3) You failing to give examples of things "that aren't always true" is frankly disgusting behavior to me. Sorry, but that's how I see it. You can spin the England example all you want, but you're not actually pointing out something that I said that "isn't always true". It would be respectable of you to retract that statement then.

 

[gjonesy]

Id like to submit a bit of context as to why some of these police shootings occur in some areas. Its part of the culture. Street culture the "stop snitching " movement. Things of this nature in many respects it is unique to America. It is promoted in music, gang lifestyle "thug life" and within the illeagal drug trade. Unfortunately kids get involved with these activities and lifestyle and some of it is just a bluff. But when you get that real criminal element mixed in with it, sometimes, many times you can't tell a gangbanger from a want to be.

Sometimes these kids are for lack of a better term to stupid to realize that it is not good to be bad. This problem and the multiplicity of different players only complicate these issues. Plain and simple police work is hard and its getting harder.

 

[MarneMath]

The article suggests a fix, but I don't see it very specifically described. Can you paraphrase what the fix is?

The author fix is captured, I think, in the second to last paragraph. It's essentially "more oversight". His premise is that since Police Officers are not held accountable, they have no real motivation to be more placid. His suggestion is to assign a special prosecutor to try excessive force cases, and secondly, he recommends external third party investigators instead of internal reviews when it comes to complaints.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Cops like that should either get more training or be cut loose. You should sue the pants off that department.

Like I said, we knew the mayor. We didn't come out of that without some perks.

 

[Astronuc]

As a European, this makes no sense at all. Here we very rarely have police officers killing civilians. What's the difference?

A big part of the problem in the US is easy access to guns as revealed in Oakland/Alameda, California. For as little as $50, one can by a pistol, and perhaps a rifle. Sure, criminals get guns, and so do people with mental issues.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/member-british-parliament-shocked-seeing-021108475.html

 

[newjerseyrunner]

A big part of the problem in the US is easy access to guns as revealed in Oakland/Alameda, California. For as little as $50, one can by a pistol, and perhaps a rifle. Sure, criminals get guns, and so do people with mental issues.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/member-british-parliament-shocked-seeing-021108475.html

About 40 years ago, the National Rifle Association, which had been up until that point mostly about safety and even regulation was taken over by extremists and it's remained a major roadblock for any regulation ever since.

 

[gjonesy]

The author fix is captured, I think, in the second to last paragraph. It's essentially "more oversight". His premise is that since Police Officers are not held accountable, they have no real motivation to be more placid. His suggestion is to assign a special prosecutor to try excessive force cases, and secondly, he recommends external third party investigators instead of internal reviews when it comes to complaints.

That may be the case in some states but in NC during any officer involved shooting the officer is chargered with murder. If its a (good shoot) after the investigation is completed and if found to be a justifiable use of force then the charge is dropped. If not the officer goes to trial. I have seen officers fired for pepper spraying someone without good cause. Then again in NC we don't see a lot of OIS unless its justifiable, if sops are not followed then the state can be sued and the state hates lossing money.

 

[gjonesy]

About 40 years ago, the National Rifle Association, which had been up until that point mostly about safety and even regulation was taken over by extremists and it's remained a major roadblock for any regulation ever since.

Well the NRA doesn't make the law, they just are just lobbyist, you can thank greedy politicians for weak gun laws.

 

[mheslep]

he/she has, of workplace fatalities for 2010...

92% "he"

 

[mheslep]

What's not easy about co-operation?

If the ethos in a community for young males is to never cooperate with a cop, then cooperation is going to be difficult.

Easy or not, co-operate is what you DO if a cop tells you to do so. Don't like it? Cop's out of line (and I've met some)? Complain to his supervisor *later*, which often has consequences for the cop. That's how it has to be. The leadership of this country should be saying something like this at the outset of *every* conversation on the subject, instead of the years of knee jerk reaction to even the possibility of injustice on the part of police.

 

[MarneMath]

That may be the case in some states but in NC during any officer involved shooting the officer is chargered with murder. If its a (good shoot) after the investigation is completed and if found to be a justifiable use of force then the charge is dropped. If not the officer goes to trial. I have seen officers fired for pepper spraying someone without good cause. Then again in NC we don't see a lot of OIS unless its justifiable, if sops are not followed then the state can be sued and the state hates lossing money.

You're going to have to show me a law or memo that indicates those actions will be taken for me to actually believe that statement.

 

[mheslep]

The scenario presented in the video is more equivalent to a car rushing to a check point, I tell the person to stop and as they slow down ...

The suspect in the video repeatedly refused commands and retreated into the vehicle, escalating the potential threat, not reducing it by "slowing down." The better checkpoint analogy is attempting to maneuver around the stop.

 

[MarneMath]

Fair enough point. In regardless, of how right or wrong the victim was in their action. It's still inexcusable for an officer to lie about the course of action he took. I also find it the officer's demeanor, escalation of force, and general dismissal of this individual as a person to be inexcusable. I am simply arguing that the officer should have handled the event different. I'm pretty sure something as simple as asking these three questions could've involved this event entirely:

1. What's your name? (Which was asked).
2. May I see your id to verify?
3. Does xyz live at this address?

Instead, we have?

1. What's your name?
(Patrick)
2. What's your name?
(Response Patrick)
3.Get out of the car!
(What's this for? )
4. There's a warrant for your arrest!
(What I just saw my parole officer! Can I see the warrant)
5. GET OUT OF THE CAR!.

There were so many opportunities for this to be handled better, and if you feel that the officer acted correctly than perhaps that's the problem with police culture. To much latitude to be jerks.

 

[mheslep]

"Three Modest Propositions"

No longer invite into the White House any leaders whose affiliated members have marched chanting their desire to kill police officers (e.g., “What do we want? Dead cops” / “Pigs in a blanket; fry ’em like bacon”).

Do not consult with any self-appointed leader in the White House whose past has included overt and implicit calls to shoot police officers (e.g., Al Sharpton: “I believe in offing the pigs. Well, they got pigs out here. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up”).

Do not invite into the White House any artists whose work has glorified the killing of officers of the criminal-justice system (e.g., Kendrick Lamar’s To Pimp a Butterfly album, one of whose songs was dubbed by Obama as his favorite of 2015), whose cover depicts a group of African-American youth celebrating with champagne and cash on the White House lawn over the corpse of a white judge with his eyes X-ed out).

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ident-could-discourage-those-who-glorify-them

 

[gjonesy]

You're going to have to show me a law or memo that indicates those actions will be taken for me to actually believe that statement.

Look up nc general stautes at
ncleg.gov, do your own home work.
Frankly i really could careless what you believe.

 

[mheslep]

As a European, this makes no sense at all. Here we very rarely have police officers killing civilians. What's the difference?

In the US, police officers killed in the line in 2015 was 130, with perhaps half of those not directly related to crime or suspicion of. In the UK (per Wiki and policememorial.org.uk), the recent figures are 2015 - 1, in 2014 - 0, in 2013 - 1, 2012 - 4, and so on. The US population is five times large as that of the UK, but it is still at least an order of magnitude more dangerous to be a cop in the US than in the UK (and perhaps Europe?).

I agree with the supposition that weapons may be similarly available to criminals in Europe. Contraband is difficult to stop. So I find myself looking elsewhere reasons. I'm inclined to credit the encouragement of lawlessness by government leadership and celebrities, a tendency to blame police first ("the police acted stupidly", apologies for Ferguson at the UN), and of a culture of disrespect for the police and the law (Occupy).

 

[gjonesy]

What really is astonishing to me is a total lack of any willingness on the part of some BLMers to even listen to Black officers.

I saw a picture of a black police officer wearing a whimsical tee shirt.

I will paraphrase what it actually said. Cops are here to protect an serve not to coddle, say pretty please or kiss your (edit) behind.

When belligerent uncooperative suspects insist on doing it (their way) and cops give into it, that's usually when cops either get hurt or get dead.

In fact if you believe in this cause and you want to make a difference here is a novel idea. If you are a law abiding citizen have a clean record go join the nearest local police force. Get trained and work this job a couple years. I guarantee your veiws will change, if you survive.

 

[gjonesy]

And the cycle of violence continues.

If we do not learn from our mistakes of the past, we will be doomed to repeat them. http://bluelivesmatter.blue/3-baton-rouge-police-officers-shot/

 

[Cruz Martinez]

Look up nc general stautes at
ncleg.gov, do your own home work.
Frankly i really could careless what you believe.

But you made a statement, you have to back it up. It's not about caring what someone else believes.

I've been following this discussion. I have a question: In the US, are you required by law to stop if a police officer asks you to stop so he can ask you questions (e.g. you're walking down the street and are intercepted by an officer), without having orders to arrest you?
What happens if you ask the officer if you are arrested, he says no and you just leave?

 

[MarneMath]

I spoke to a friend who is a district attorney about this awhile ago and based on my memory, stops tend to lumped into three themes.

1. An officer may approach anyone and ask you any questions. When an officer does not have articulable facts that would allow him/her to detain you or arrest you, then you are free to go. The side note is that the officer does not have to inform you that you are free to go. It is up to you, as in individual, to state that you do not wish to answer any questions and also ask if you are free to go.

2. Terry stops are stops where an officer believes you are going to commit a crime or have committed a crime. In these stops you are not allowed to go. At most you may be required to identify yourself. The law becomes a bit muddy here. While you may be required to vocally ID yourself, it's murky as to if you have to provide ID or written verification of whom you are.

3. Lastly we have an arrest. Again you are not free to go, but once again you required to ID yourself. Many states failure to ID yourself at this points does become a crime, even if it isn't in a Terry stop.

 

[gjonesy]

But you made a statement, you have to back it up. It's not about caring what someone else believes.

I've been following this discussion. I have a question: In the US, are you required by law to stop if a police officer asks you to stop so he can ask you questions (e.g. you're walking down the street and are intercepted by an officer), without having orders to arrest you?
What happens if you ask the officer if you are arrested, he says no and you just leave?

Actually i did back it up, i told him exactly where to find that information.

This is general discussion if I am not mistaken. And I am not making any claim for any of the rest of the 48 states or other countries, just North Carolina because that is where i receive my training. The laws are easy to look up so i don't have to prove anything. They covered the Use of force continuum on the first week. And incase you aren't familiar with the US constitution it states that no one will be depribed of life, liberty or freedom without due process. Any officer involved shooting must be investigated. In my state there is no self defence law. Only justifiable use of force.

Feel free to look through all these statues. The laws on muder are pretty clear and a badge doesn't stop due process of law. A uniform, a badge and a sworn oath do not exempt officers from the law, infact it guarantees a charge and a investigation. Now i know people like to think police work is like they see in the movies and we can just shoot anyone any way we want for any reason. Its not like the movies. Police work is a bit more formal then that. And not quite that easy. In fact a police officer can get in way more trouble for a bad shooting then a civilian, we are trained, civilians aren't so we are held to a higher standard.

In north Carolina you have to stop but because of (blue light bandits) you can drive to the police department before you stop if its an unmarked vehicle. On the street if you are walking in the general vicinity of a crime or if someone calls the police and you are stopped they can (detain you) you have to define arrest, an arrest is when you are no longer free to go. A detention in lew of arrest means they hold you for a time period to make a determination of an offence, you aren't under arrest until it is established you have committed an offence. And it must be an arrestable offence otherwise you are ticketed and released.http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl

 

[gjonesy]

Just for general knowledge, the only officers in NC allowed to use deadly force on an unarmed suspect are correctional officers. They may use deadly force to prevent the escape of convicted felons or pretrial detainees awaiting felony charges.

They are also charged, put on administrative leave pending investigation and if its determined that the officer acted with prudence and lawfully the charge is dropped...if its a bad shoot they go to trial, and because they are state officers they must be investigated at the highest level by the state bureau of investigation.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR. Being charged isn't to be confused with being arrested and put in jail. Its a process of law. For an investigation to be done formally there is presumptive "charge" of some kind, it can be excessive force, corruption malfeasance ect. That doesn't mean that it will be heard in open court or that any jury will hear evidence. There is an administrative hearing and then charges are either recommended or dropped pending investigation.

 

[gjonesy]

But you made a statement, you have to back it up. It's not about caring what someone else believes.

1. An officer may approach anyone and ask you any questions. When an officer does not have articulable facts that would allow him/her to detain you or arrest you, then you are free to go. The side note is that the officer does not have to inform you that you are free to go. It is up to you, as in individual, to state that you do not wish to answer any questions and also ask if you are free to go.

2. Terry stops are stops where an officer believes you are going to commit a crime or have committed a crime. In these stops you are not allowed to go. At most you may be required to identify yourself. The law becomes a bit muddy here. While you may be required to vocally ID yourself, it's murky as to if you have to provide ID or written verification of whom you are.

3. Lastly we have an arrest. Again you are not free to go, but once again you required to ID yourself. Many states failure to ID yourself at this points does become a crime, even if it isn't in a Terry stop.

Ok since this is hearsay let's see the links memos and documents that back up these claims.

Two can play this game..

 

[gjonesy]

In case you were unable to find it here is the actual statues

§ 14-17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
(a) A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment,
starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which
shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex
offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of
a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any
person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's
prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A-2000, except
that any such person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the murder shall be punished
in accordance with Part 2A of Article 81B of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.
(b) A murder other than described in subsection (a) of this section or in G.S. 14-23.2
shall be deemed second degree murder. Any person who commits second degree murder shall
be punished as a Class B1 felon, except that a person who commits second degree murder shall
be punished as a Class B2 felon in either of the following circumstances:
(1) The malice necessary to prove second degree murder is based on an
inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton
manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and
social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
(2) The murder is one that was proximately caused by the unlawful distribution
of opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or
preparation of opium, or cocaine or other substance described in G.S.
90-90(1)d., or methamphetamine, and the ingestion of such substance caused
the death of the user.
(c) For the purposes of this section, it shall constitute murder where a child is born alive
but dies as a result of injuries inflicted prior to the child being born alive. The degree of murder
shall be determined as described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section. (1893, cc. 85, 281;
Rev., s. 3631; C.S., s. 4200; 1949, c. 299, s. 1; 1973, c. 1201, s. 1; 1977, c. 406, s. 1; 1979, c.
682, s. 6; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1251, ss. 1, 2; c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c.
179, s. 14; c. 662, s. 1; 1987, c. 693; 1989, c. 694; 1993, c. 539, s. 112; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 21, s.
1; c. 22, s. 4; c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-470, s. 2; 2004-178, s. 1; 2007-81, s. 1; 2012-165, s. 1;

Notice in this section that no where does it say but if you have a badge that makes it legal to kill someone with a deadly weapon. Police correctional officers and security officers are (persons also)

 

[MarneMath]

1. Florida v. Royer and United States v. Mendenhall

2. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default...-by-subject/4th-amendment/terrystopupdate.pdf

3. Pennsylvania v. Muniz

These are the statues and relevant opinions that support my statement. Just so you know, this forum tends to have a rule, even in general discussions, that claims should be verifiable. It isn't really a "game", but a tool used to help promote healthy and sustainable discussions based around facts.

 

[MarneMath]

What you post seems rather irrelevant. The Supreme Court has already ruled that use of deadly force is not illegal, so it doesn't make sense for an "automatic" charge charged against an officer. Perhaps North Carolina is the one random state that decides to charge officers immediately; however from the various use of lethal force cases in North Carolina, it seems more normal to place an officer on administrative leave pending an investigation. From what I understand, an investigation is not the same as being charged. Furthermore, it seems if malice intent led to the death, then that investigation will led to a charged officer. However, I haven't read nor seen anything that indicates anything you are claiming. In fact, your own laws state otherwise:

14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.

http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3-431.pdf further reading on NC and officer use of force

 

[gjonesy]

It isn't really a "game", but a tool used to help promote healthy and sustainable discussions based around facts.

I have seen it used many times to have threads shut down because some people simply didn't agree with the point of veiw being expressed. Used as a tool to call in a moderator to either force compliance or shut it down. Thats what i call a "Game".

It really has no basis on whether or not a person is stating a fact.

I can say all day long that water is wet. A factual common sense statement but can it be proven with documents and scientific data?

 

[gjonesy]

14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.

Still nothing you have posted spacifically says that a (charge will not be made according to the rule of law)

It is procedural in the case of any death by firearm.

 

[MarneMath]

You are asking me to prove a negative.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/byarticle/chapter_15a/article_20.pdf

It really makes no sense that in your laws it'll say Officers are justified in using deadly force, but then they'll be charged with murder at the same time. As the individual making the claim, I feel that you have some sort of obligation to justify this via some means. The more abnormal the claim, the more proof things tend to require. Generally speaking, saying water is wet is not a controversial statement. However, if you came here saying you found the theory of everything, then expect for heavy questioning.

In my opinion, your statement seems a bit more outlandish and something I really cannot take on face value.

 

[gjonesy]

I will do you one better!

Here is the telephone number of the attorney generals office of the state of North Carolina.

Call him and tell him that the north Carolina justice academy is teaching its officers wrongly that they can use leathal force without any consequence because they have badges. Since you appear to know more then an officer that has been trained in that state.
I am sure hed be delighted to hear from you.

1(919) 716-6400

 

[gjonesy]

It really makes no sense that in your laws it'll say Officers are justified in using deadly force, but then they'll be charged with murder

The statues you posted are for justifiable use of force and are in place as exemptions.

Still doesn't mean they will not be charged, doesn't mean there will be no investigation. Those are exemptions and must be ruled upon at administrative hearing.