Pages

Friday, August 02, 2013

Armed and fearful

This is precisely why women should not be permitted to serve as armed police officers.  They are terrified of larger, stronger men overpowering them, and so they are much more likely to unjustifiably fire on members of the public than male officers:
Cellphone video recorded by an eyewitness captured a police officer in Santa Ana, Calif., fatally shooting a 22-year-old homeless man at a shopping center earlier this week.The unidentified witness reportedly saw a confrontation unfold between a police officer and victim Hans Kevin Arellano. The incident occurred in the parking lot of the Harbor Place Shopping Center at about 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

Here’s how the eyewitness described the events to CBS Los Angeles:

 “She exited her patrol car, gun drawn, and asked the gentlemen to get on the ground. The gentlemen didn’t get on the ground, he was still inside the restaurant. She asked again. The man then exited the restaurant, and as he was exiting the restaurant, he said, ‘What are you gonna do, b—-?’ About a second later, she shot him in the chest.”
While this news report will no doubt excite many feminists, as it sounds exactly like a feminist revenge fantasy, it's actually an extremely dangerous development for both the public and female police officers alike.  If anything but instant compliance with a female officer is a death sentence, it will only be a matter of time before criminals begin acting in preemptive self-defense.

It is also worth noting that a society in which individuals cannot verbally disrespect the police without being shot dead is not a free society. 

89 comments:

  1. I wish to leave this country. Alas, poverty after fourteen years of prosperity render even that impossible.

    Here in the Deep South, fomented grievances have cut into the Bible Belt like a razor. What was once a quiet place is no longer. The police are now militarized and respect for the overarching arm of the law has plummeted. Police are the enemy here now, just as in any metropolitan area.

    We're not free.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She will be tried for murder ~wishful thinking~

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is also worth noting that a society in which individuals cannot verbally disrespect the police without being shot dead is not a free society.

    That's a plan not a problem. I can disrespect a female officer and get shot to death and my brothers won't ever have to work out in the hot TX sun again and retire on my life insurance and the ensuing law suit. Good deal Vox.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd have a hard time convicting this cop of murder. The guy she shot sounds like a real shit head.

    Manslaughter sounds about right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bah, more vibrancyAugust 02, 2013 5:39 AM

    Homeless Mexican criminal scumbag is shot dead, and I'm supposed to feel bad?

    The cop should be rewarded for saving the state a ton of money and saving the taxpayers from being robbed and otherwise victimized.

    An older sister of Arellano told KCAL9′s Tom Wait that her mother is in Mexico and in a lot of pain. A translator said, “They haven’t seen any TV or anything or what’s going on because their mom is in Mexico and all she cares about is the suffering of her mom in Mexico.”

    Gee, if he had stayed in Mexico where he belonged, none of this would have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Manslaughter sounds about right.

    I agree. I can see a case for second-degree murder, but given the extra discretion given to cops, manslaughter is the correct charge.

    Homeless Mexican criminal scumbag is shot dead, and I'm supposed to feel bad?

    You're ignoring the general principle here. If lady cops can shoot dead homeless Mexican criminal scumbags because they're scared, they can also shoot dead home-owning American law-abiding citizens for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gee, if he had stayed in Mexico where he belonged, none of this would have happened.

    Entirely correct. And I share your sentiments. They shouldn't be here.The U.S. belongs to us, Mexico belongs to them. They need to go home.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anything that can happen to an already victimized, aggrieved person of color will be permitted to happen to a privileged white man. The most likely way for this shooting to be condemned is for the officer to have been a white man while shooting a non-white. But a woman likely will get away with it. But a white man (victim) is fair game for any cop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds much like Zimmerdouche

    ReplyDelete
  11. With a name like Hans I can't imagine it was in iius he was Mexican or whichever form if Hispanic his father was.

    Let's look in the bright side. At least she didn't drop the clip and run away leaving the gun on the ground.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Homeless Mexican criminal scumbag is shot dead, and I'm supposed to feel bad?

    You're ignoring the general principle here.


    Indeed.

    This is the salami slicing technique that the National Security State uses to get people who call themselves limited government conservatives to go along with its agenda.

    This SWAT raid is OK because the targets are meth dealers.

    That GPS surveillance is OK because the targets are illegal aliens.

    This other email monitoring program is OK because we're catching Muslim terrorists.

    Bar by bar by bar they build the cage, and each and every piece of steel is justified. Yet in the end, the cage is built around me and you and you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You gotta admit, though. Dude asked a question and got a prompt, concise, unambiguous answer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not long ago I had jury duty and there was a threat at the courthouse. They hustled us all down into the basement, in the care of a female cop, who proceeded to pull out her gun to protect us all. The problem was she was excited, jumping around, and the gun kept getting pointed at us. I mean people hit the deck a few times. Not me, I just stood there with my mouth open, thinking I'm going to die in the basement of the courthouse. Seriously, I was starting to hope the raging psycho they were looking for would show up and rescue us all. I'd rather take my chances with him. They did suspend her for three days, for jury terrorization.

    So, I can't dispute any of Vox's points, having had similar politically incorrect thoughts myself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Great MartiniAugust 02, 2013 7:07 AM

    Playing devil's advocate here a little, modern feminism would just say that, well, women are more vulnerable in patriarchical society and therefore the greater predilection to deadly force by women police officers is a predictable response to that. (No, actually I have a feeling they would fight tooth and nail against that conclusion, but when you think about it, it's a perfectly valid rationale.) Speaking personally, whenever I interact with a female authority figure, I'm doubly conscious of my deliberate actions. If I were dealing with a female police officer, I would make damn sure all my movements were slow and predictable. Women are treated differently. Why shouldn't they be expected to act differently? If they're expected to act the same as men, why shouldn't the prerequisite be that they be treated the same? And if that isn't possible, why shouldn't the status quo simply be that you'd better act doubly nice around female police officers because you have a better chance to be killed by them?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread.

    So that explains why we're not communicating. I was talking about legitimate self-defense by a citizen trapped in a six-by-six box with no immediate means of escape. Maybe we should have established that we were talking about two different scenarios before the whole misunderstanding went on.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also, yes. There should be no women in the police force except to frisk female suspects and maybe make coffee. Because we are at such a disadvantage, we HAVE to escalate faster than men would. Since police are supposed to be protecting people and avoiding killing them, that means no women cops.

    ...Sudden thought: Maybe part of the reason for militarization of the police is an extension of woman-think (that principle of "I have to escalate faster to win the fight").

    ReplyDelete
  18. but women cops are hot....i mean they are on tv at least....and they are like super smart and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This man was executed for the crime of contempt of cop. It happens all the time.

    There will be an internal investigation, a slap on the wrist, and she will be let off the hook for murder because she was on her period.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bah, more vibrancyAugust 02, 2013 7:41 AM

    If lady cops can shoot dead homeless Mexican criminal scumbags because they're scared, they can also shoot dead home-owning American law-abiding citizens for the same reason.

    You're ignoring the general principle here.

    If we didn't have so much vibrancy, even male cops would not need to be armed, much less lady cops.

    Increased vibrancy leads to increased police encounters with aggressive criminal scumbags leads to touchy, armed cops leads to law-abiding white homeowners getting shot as well. Yaaay, vibrancy!

    Better a thousand white homeowners get shot than we should be a racist country that excluded homeless vibrant scumbags. Or so I suppose...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, my cop ex-boyfriend and all of his shitbag buddies assured me, ages ago, that any time a cop shoots a suspect it is ALWAYS worse for the cop because he has to live with knowing he killed someone for the rest of his life. True story.

    See? The prison of her own mind is just desserts. The justice system can't punish her any harder than that. /sarc

    ReplyDelete
  22. I worked on an ambulance years ago, and there were always a couple of tiny female medics who couldn't lift heavy patients and who wouldn't get out of the ambulance if there was the slightest hint of danger. We would have to call for another unit to come provide help on up to half of our calls when working with one of them. Eventually you just learned to radio "need assist" on certain calls even before you got on scene.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "They are terrified of larger, stronger men overpowering them.."

    This may also apply to low status male cops who are afraid of women? Several years ago I got pulled over in a mistaken identity case. The cop put me against the side of the car, waved his flashlight to intimidate me, and said, "don't run from me." My brain went into over drive trying to reason that one out because I was 8 mos pregnant, twice his age, and wearing heels. I couldn't figure out if he was joking or serious. What was I going to do, waddle away? Seriously, dude, are you going to have problem catching me?

    The smart thing to do with cops is to keep your mouth shut, but that's not what motivates me. I'm usually in a such a state of shock when confronted by stupidity, I'm simply speechless.

    Not all cops, of course. I have met some good ones.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "...it will only be a matter of time before criminals begin acting in preemptive self-defense."

    Especially when you already have statutes allowing use of force (up to and including deadly force) if you believe the officer is using excessive force.

    " Since police are supposed to be protecting people and avoiding killing them...

    While they probably do try to avoid killing people unecessarily, the Supreme Court ruled nearly 20 years ago that their job wasn't to "protect and serve".

    ReplyDelete
  25. Better a thousand white homeowners get shot than we should be a racist country that excluded homeless vibrant scumbags. Or so I suppose...

    You're a complete moron. Do you have any idea what Vox's views are on vibrancy and immigration?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Was he holding bambi?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You're ignoring the general principle here.

    I'm doing nothing of the sort and attempting to ascribe your failure to me simply makes you look foolish. You're just making it more obvious that you haven't thought through the matter, as giving female cops the right to shoot immigrants who frighten them is not going to end the vibrancy problem.

    I am aware that the problem is caused, at least in part, by increased vibrancy. But the reality of that problem does not mean that giving lady cops open season on them is a desirable solution or will not make things worse for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. With a name like Hans Arellano, we obviously have a white Hispanic here. They are a dangerous group. Will the media remind us in every article that he's a white Hispanic?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This may also apply to low status male cops who are afraid of women?

    No. It appears you haven't eradicated the kneejerk feminist reaction to attempt to also assign to men that which makes women look bad. He wasn't afraid of you, he was bullying you.

    Notice that he did not shoot you dead.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It should be pointed out (from the original linked article) that the man in question was a convicted burglar who had already been fighting with other people in a nearby McDonald's parking lot, so the officer was going into a confrontation with somebody she knew was already jacked-up, aggressive, hostile to police and (for all she knew at the time) possibly armed. It's also worth noting that in that video there is no way to see what Arellano is actually *doing* at the moment he was shot; he may well have been lifting an arm to strike, and eyewitness testimony is easily unreliable enough that that could get missed or even deliberately left out. I can easily see many male police officers escalating too quickly in that context as well. And the officer in question is a "fifteen-year veteran" of the force, so the notion of a terrified shrinking violet losing her head when faced with a taller opponent for the first time seems a lot less psychologically plausible.

    That does not excuse by any means her actions or the basic point about abuse of police authority to wield force, but it may be that the issue of this particular cop being a woman is less relevant than it might at first appear. If she's going to be tried, try her for being an abusive cop -- leave her sex out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So now when a female cop demands you get out of the car (or chair or whatever) it makes sense to draw your weapon if you have one and come up firing - death vs. prison for life. If those are the only choices left and compliance is not possible it will be interesting to see how long the police stations go on without groups of citizens deciding that a nice counter offense and raid is in order. I wonder how polite the citizens who have been tormented for years will be when THEY have the cop prone, their foot on the cops throat, with the business end of the shotgun 1 inch away from the cops face.

    ReplyDelete
  32. When they have no moral authority and are no longer part of the community, but rather see all around them criminals they just haven't got to yet, in Glock they trust.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "If she's going to be tried, try her for being an abusive cop -- leave her sex out of it."

    You can't, because as Vox stated, "..it's actually an extremely dangerous development for both the public and female police officers alike.." Her sex will matter because her sex is what bad guys will use to identify her. As Remo has also pointed out, they're likely to learn to shoot first rather than face someone who has proven to be unpredictable.

    I'm busy eradicating, Vox. All my knee jerk reactions are now posted as a question, not a statement.

    ReplyDelete
  34. She did exactly what she was supposed to do...because safety.

    BTW - I love it when I see on cop shows someone being handcuffed and then the words, "You're not under arrest, I'm just putting these hand cuffs on you for my safety and yours." I think the case could be made that the citizen is actually safer without handcuffs, but perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
  35. At this rate, the "I was in fear for my life" defense for shooting cops should be recognized as legitimate before too long.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Titus Didius TacitusAugust 02, 2013 9:06 AM

    If anything but instant compliance with a female officer is a death sentence, it will only be a matter of time before criminals begin acting in preemptive self-defense.
    -
    That will establish some deterrence for obvious criminals but not for honest citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Beyond that, this chick will be sucking off the public tit in no time. If she loses her position she is more likely to find her way onto disability than to another job. She doesn't exactly sound like the wifely type, either. She is out of bounds in all ways. Bleh... Another for the pile of progressive body dumps.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I worked on an ambulance years ago, and there were always a couple of tiny female medics who couldn't lift heavy patients..."

    Imagine watching two females drop your dad and the gurney when trying to lift him into the ambulance, especially after he just broke his neck. Pretty sad when I had more lifting power at 12 than they did as grown women. btw- my dad was a fit 170lbs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ IM2L844: Check the statutes in your state as it's probably already on the books. I know it is in Texas. The problem is justification to a system that's rigged against you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Her sex will matter because her sex is what bad guys will use to identify her.

    That's a reason to discourage having female cops in general. It is not a reason necessarily to assess or punish this particular officer's abuses any differently.

    There are two separate issues being conflated here -- general tendency of police to abuse their authority to use armed force, and specific tendency of female police to escalate too quickly because of their perceived inability to convincingly threaten or effectively use intermediate degrees of force. Nobody knows enough about this particular incident yet to know whether this is more relevant to the former or the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Stephen J. August 02, 2013 8:28 AM
    so the officer was going into a confrontation with somebody she knew was already jacked-up, aggressive, hostile to police and (for all she knew at the time) possibly armed. It's also worth noting that in that video there is no way to see what Arellano is actually *doing* at the moment he was shot;




    *shrugs*

    so what?

    the man was UN-armed.

    the video ALSO informs us that she was armed with a taser. she had less-than-lethal options available to her. she chose to shoot a man in cold blood.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "That's a reason to discourage having female cops in general. It is not a reason necessarily to assess or punish this particular officer's abuses any differently."

    Stephan, I haven't read anything here that suggested punishing her any differently? However, the Real World will punish her differently, on account of bad guys not having attended their proper diversity training.

    Did you mean, her behavior should not be punished with a ban on all female police officers? Does that mean you think she's an anomaly?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Reminds of the guy here a few years ago that was executed by being shot in the head with a single shot. He had his hands in his pants pockets. After repeating 3 times "Take your hands out of your pocket," the officer fire.

    The cop said he was in fear of his life because the guy may have been armed with a gun in his pocket and refused to remove his hands.

    He was unarmed.

    Think about that for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Matriarchy!
    Catch the Fever!
    This wasn't about fear.
    Big dude gave her lip, so the hamster concluded he had to die.
    Nobody puts Baby in a corner, especially if Baby watched Thelma & Louise too many times as a child.
    Doubly so if Aunt Flo was in town.
    Remember how Deputy Fife had to keep his one bullet in his shirt pocket, lest he accidentally blow a hole in Otis' chest?
    We think we've progressed, but we're just about done.
    This is not a civilization...

    ReplyDelete
  45. You shouldn't call them "lady" cops, Vox. You might upset the SFWA.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The other skepticAugust 02, 2013 10:29 AM

    I think this is what is going on.

    The cops have decided they don't like all that vibrancy so they performed a public execution. She was chosen as the executioner since she was more likely to get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The problem is justification to a system that's rigged against you.

    Of course that's the problem. I've never heard of a case where a defendant tried to use self-defense as justification for killing a cop (not that that means there hasn't been any). I expect, as these sorts of incidents become increasingly problematic, at some point a precedent setting self-defense case where a cop was killed will sooner or later make national headlines and bring this problem to the forefront of public awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Police departments used to have minimum height requirements - precisely so they would not have to shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  49. IM2L844 August 02, 2013 10:33 AM
    I expect, as these sorts of incidents become increasingly problematic, at some point a precedent setting self-defense case where a cop was killed will sooner or later make national headlines and bring this problem to the forefront of public awareness.




    you'd best hope that the defense lawyer in such a hypothetical case is more intelligent than Zimmerman's.

    you get a jury of all women and it's going to be just about impossible to be ruled 'not guilty by reason of justifiably homicide' when the dead guy ( worse, dead woman ) is a cop.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mike M. August 02, 2013 11:02 AM
    Police departments used to have minimum height requirements






    SEXISSSSSSSS!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I expect, as these sorts of incidents become increasingly problematic, at some point a precedent setting self-defense case where a cop was killed will sooner or later make national headlines and bring this problem to the forefront of public awareness.

    I think there is a good chance someone will shoot a cop after seeing a family member shot and say they were defending their family. Think of how often innocent people get shot on SWAT raids.

    ReplyDelete
  52. It's getting to the point that your better off if you shoot first when confronted by the police as your going to die anyway and you might as well take one of these phychotic bastards with you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. so what?
    the man was UN-armed.


    LOL, Trayvon was unarmed.

    Not that I disagree with the point Vox is trying to make. The primary reason I don’t have much respect for Zimmerman, if you are going to be Lil Billy Neighborhood Watch badass at least be able to hold your own in a fight so you don’t end up killing some punk kid because you’re getting your ass whupped.

    And that’s the problem with female cops, the job requires they insert themselves into these types of situations and because they can’t hold their own in a fight they end up shooting and killing people unjustifiably.

    But the male cops aren’t much better...I mean really, the mentality of female cops and out of shape fat boy cops probably isn’t that different, some of the hairy knuckled dyke cops I’ve seen around might be able to hold their own against your average officer Wiggums.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Reminds of the guy here a few years ago that was executed by being shot in the head with a single shot. He had his hands in his pants pockets. After repeating 3 times "Take your hands out of your pocket," the officer fire.

    The cop said he was in fear of his life because the guy may have been armed with a gun in his pocket and refused to remove his hands.


    A huge risk for business & tourism in the US. This happens not all that infrequently with the police and tourists. A similar but less unhappily ended scenario happened when I was working with a C-level team of executives from a German-based company, thinking of locating a facility in the US. We were out walking around looking at potential sites, after dinner. Two cops rolled up and started giving the group of us trouble, because one of the executives had walked a few feet into the road, off the sidewalk, to get a better look at a large building. They handcuffed him so he wouldn't cause problems while they cited him for jaywalking. Of course, he spoke very little English, and they didn't like that. The partner separated me from the group, so I got to see the CTO of a huge company get a nightstick to ribs for not complying with a cop he literally could not understand.

    I do remember that the mayor of the town and the police chief got a letter FedEx'd with the check (drawn in Euro) saying how the company would be unable to locate their new facility in their fair town. Instead, the expanded an existing one in Germany and just hired US ex-pats to staff it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think there is a good chance someone will shoot a cop after seeing a family member shot and say they were defending their family. Think of how often innocent people get shot on SWAT raids.

    It is entirely possible that they will eventually raid the wrong family, and that family will be a family who are not only prepared but able to fight back, effectively. I certainly know a few families where the cops would #1 not get the drop, and #2 take heavy casualities.

    The first, middle, and end strategy of SWAT is overwhelming force & surprise. The truth is that on most raids, there are a few primary guys who are probably decent, and then most of the bodies coming in are amateurs, who will quickly break ranks when the fight begins.

    This is what the Branch Dividians were so upsetting to the Government. It exposed the weaknesses of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  56. IM2L844, I've found a fair few uses of self-defense as a, well, defense. It doesn't happen often.

    Two that I found right off the bat were rejected by a jury.

    Jerry Chambliss of Arkansas, however, was not charged at all. It helps that the perp, Ofcr. Ensminger, had a record already. That's not an on-duty cop trying to make an arrest or anything, but it is what it is.

    Here's one from 1987, although arguably it's outdated.

    I've had a couple of other names pop up as having been charged and then acquitted--Charles DeGustine in Florida, and a Steven Shively in Topeka--but I can't seem to find the original source articles. Someone named "RickInNoCal"/"one-eyed fat man" has been copy-pasting these stories around, and since he's a Democratic Underground user, I'm hesitant to cite them as proof positive.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Delaware Blue HenAugust 02, 2013 11:35 AM

    "Reminds of the guy here a few years ago that was executed by being shot in the head with a single shot. He had his hands in his pants pockets. After repeating 3 times "Take your hands out of your pocket," the officer fire.

    The cop said he was in fear of his life because the guy may have been armed with a gun in his pocket and refused to remove his hands.

    He was unarmed.

    Think about that for a moment."

    This sounds like what happened in Wilmington, DE on Nov 6, 2006--it has been well documented by Pro Liberate (See http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/03/death-squad-in-delaware-case-of.html).

    However, what made matters worse was the reason that Derek Hale could not remove his hands from his pockets was that he was suffering from the after effects of being tasered. He was tasered three times. It was pure murder, and the cop was never charged. In fact, the Delaware AG (the son of VP Biden) signed off on it being a "righteous kill".

    ReplyDelete
  58. "If she's going to be tried, try her for being an abusive cop -- leave her sex out of it."

    That is exactly what they will try her for: being abusive cop. The greater point, the point that Vox is addressing here, is that these situations will continue to happen as long as we have affirmative action hiring of female cops. And the male cops, as always, will cover for her. If we had paraplegic midget cops with Parkinson's they would occur even more often because even more funny movements at even greater distances would be seen as a legitimate lethal threat.

    About 150 years ago, the Police Chief in Milwaukee deliberately hired large brawling Irishmen as cops. They had to be able to go into a bar filled with a bunch of drunken rowdies, arrest a miscreant alone using their fists to knock out anyone interfering with them and drag the guy out by his shirt collar, if necessary. No guns, no shootings, no quaking in fear and no calling for backup.

    Now that the police are armed and pussified with affirmative action females, almost every citizen becomes a lethal threat merely by swearing or looking fierce. Every time a woman gets off for these killings it lowers the bar for every other cop, too.

    The Lady Cop probably won't be fired. She probably won't be charged. And if charged she will probably be acquitted for being honestly afraid for her life (as girls generally are).

    And the takeaway for every other cop (female AND male) will be that you can shoot an unarmed suspect from 30-40 feet away and get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Seriously, I was starting to hope the raging psycho they were looking for would show up and rescue us all. I'd rather take my chances with him. They did suspend her for three days, for jury terrorization.

    Exactly. I can immediately surmise the capabilities and limitations of a maniac with a chainsaw. A panicking woman with a gun is whole different matter.

    ReplyDelete
  60. It is not just the lady cops that are afraid of their own shadow these days...

    Another Just Because I Can Stop

    ReplyDelete
  61. VD observes:
    You're ignoring the general principle here. If lady cops can shoot dead homeless Mexican criminal scumbags because they're scared, they can also shoot dead home-owning American law-abiding citizens for the same reason.

    In fact something close to this took place recently in Lebanon, TN when the militarized polizei carried out a no-knock drug-raid at the wring address, shooting dead the homeowner who got up to defend himself what he correctly thought was a home invasion (it actually is a home-invasion, but the utterly corrupt legal-system will not view it as such). The killers in cases like this are never charged, unless the victim happened to be a relative of Obama's. From the Costco killings in Las vegas and Virginia, it is increasingly evident that the police essentially have a license to kill for any reason, or no reason whatever - provided the one killed is insufficiently vibrant. The LA case will be interesting as the one killed had vibrancy, so the squid-funded legal advocacy groups will probably try to force some sort of action. MALDEF has lots of Ford Foundation money, and can sick some lawyers in the police agency.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Well, my cop ex-boyfriend and all of his shitbag buddies assured me, ages ago, that any time a cop shoots a suspect it is ALWAYS worse for the cop because he has to live with knowing he killed someone for the rest of his life. True story."

    This isn't surprising because it is often a technique used by those who feel guilty for some moral crime such as hurting or killing others. The Nazis understood this and used it to good effect. People with a conscience feel guilty for hurting or killing someone and often have sympathy for the victim. So you redirect the sympathy to yourself, by convincing yourself of the awful things you have to do because you had no choice.

    Instead of "Pity that poor man, I shot him dead for no good reason." It becomes, "Pity me, the harsh, horrible job I had to do of shooting that criminal, it is a hard life I must live."

    That is how you get people to do monstrous things.

    It is also how someone could say something so stupid as it was harder on them than the guy they shot dead.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dipshit writes They are terrified of larger, stronger men overpowering them, and so they are much more likely to unjustifiably fire on members of the public than male officers:

    And then for proof points to one incident in which a female officer seems to have unnecessarily shot someone, in a similar manner to numerous other examples of male officers also abusing their power.

    Tell us all again about your understanding of science, you moron.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Look, Phony is back with his endless Marxist Critique.

    Ever going to posit your own hypothesis, or are you just going to spend all your time nitpicking?

    It is far easier to be critical than to be correct, Phony. You appear to know this well.

    ReplyDelete
  65. IF Troll_Present DELETE Nonsensical_Troll_Vomit;

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Phoenician August 02, 2013 1:57 PM
    Tell us all again about your understanding of science, you moron.




    you will now, PER THE RULES OF THE BLOG, point us to the sentence in this essay ( or the responses ) wherein Vox claims that he is conducting 'science' on this matter.

    if you fail to provide this evidence then you should attach the sobriquet ", me moron" to all subsequent posts that you make.


    it is nice to see that you're getting your head around the concept of endemic police abuse of force though.

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  68. @Phoenician - "I am already dead and you are boring me to death," (zombie from starburst commercial).

    You are boring everybody back to death, including the zombies. When a group of people, with relative ease and accuracy, can write your critiques for you - it's time to pick up a thesaurus. I'm even bored writing this post. Sad and lame and boring...

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anything that can happen to an already victimized, aggrieved person of color will be permitted to happen to a privileged white man.

    Even more so, because they won't have to worry about getting Zimmermanned later over the race angle.

    Didn't cops used to have to see a weapon, or at least be told a weapon had been seen on the suspect, before they were allowed to draw their guns, let alone fire? Or was that just a TV thing?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Actually this is proof that women would make excellent soldiers. She didn't run away. She made a good shot. Send her to the Iranian front.

    /s

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Actually this is proof that women would make excellent soldiers."

    If being a soldier = shooting unarmed people.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Didn't cops used to have to see a weapon, or at least be told a weapon had been seen on the suspect, before they were allowed to draw their guns, let alone fire? Or was that just a TV thing?"

    Depends on what information is available - why didn't she wait for backup?

    ReplyDelete
  73. And then for proof points to one incident in which a female officer seems to have unnecessarily shot someone, in a similar manner to numerous other examples of male officers also abusing their power.

    Which our host also reports on a regular basis.

    The point here, if I am reading aright,

    1) The shooting was fairly reasonable because the woman was not only afraid, but reasonably afraid due to the power differential.

    2) Any system in which it is fairly reasonable for cops to shoot people simply for dissing them is bad news for both the citizenry, who are liable to get shot even for presumed disrespect, and for the cops, who by declaring (witting or not) open season on citizens have, in return, (wittingly or not) declared open season upon themselves.

    When you can expect any confrontation with the cops has a good chance of making you dead regardless of the source of confrontation, what are murder charges by comparison?

    Bad news for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Fail to see how the female police officer behaved differently from typical male officers.

    Male and female officers consider non-compliance immediate grounds for execution.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The case of Cory Maye in Mississippi is a good example of self defence in a cop shooting. The courts would not let him use it, but after conviction and appeals it was sent back to court where he pled guilty to manslaughter and got time served. The appeals court ruled that the trial court should have instructed the jury in self defence.

    He shot a cop who had burst into his home during a no knock raid. They were at the wrong address, and not after Mr. Maye to begin with.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

    ReplyDelete
  76. Agreed with everything VD except I can't help to be a bit upbeat since both a piece of shit is now not screwing up his town and a screw-loose ahole of a cop is now of the force and probably going to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Emrys ---- Only clueless people fail to understand that any meaningful sentence in a federal prison is basically a death sentence for white males, either physically or of the soul for what they must become.

    This is at the core of why white resistance is so low in the face of countless insults and craziness. The people in charge love it and can literally push anything on the masses now. Increase diversity and immigration simply cascade this effect.

    Why would John Smith, an accountant living in a nice suburb jeopardize his whole future and comfort when even the more hard boiled whites who should be providing some lead to follow are terrified of the death sentence dangling over their head for literally everything. Think about it.

    It also gives politicians even more joy as it artificially makes crime numbers look less sick than they actually are. You always hear that "yeah, but crime is down almost everywhere, blah blah" You want to know why? Because white crime has dried up to the point of being a blip on most state's radars. In a weird way a slightly more prone to violence, reactionary white populace would do a world of good.

    This has other ramifications and I'd love to read a more in depth coverage of this.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I expect that pretty soon now the police will just begin tasing or shooting everyone they interact with for "officer safety". You'll be walking down the street, minding your own business, and the next thing you know your muscles are locked, you're on the ground, and 4 giant fat cop faces are looming down at you, yelling, "Where's the nearest coffee shop? WHERE? Tell us NOW!" You'll be shot if you fail to comply within 3 seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  79. So much chest thumping about how you'll preemptively shoot policemen in "self-defense".

    Ha.

    You know you'll be cringing, abject bootlickers the next time you're pulled over.

    All bark and no bite, that's the libertarian tough guy in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Pasty Conservative Or Libertarian, Take Your PickAugust 02, 2013 11:36 PM

    "Why would John Smith, an accountant living in a nice suburb jeopardize his whole future and comfort when even the more hard boiled whites who should be providing some lead to follow are terrified of the death sentence dangling over their head for literally everything. Think about it."


    Cali, why don't you, as a hard boiled white, take the mantle of leadership and show those suburban whites how it's done, nasty style! Don't think about it, do it!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Pasty Conservative Or Libertarian, Take Your PickAugust 02, 2013 11:37 PM

    Cail, Castric, etc. they're all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The other skepticAugust 03, 2013 12:53 AM

    And then for proof points to one incident in which a female officer seems to have unnecessarily shot someone, in a similar manner to numerous other examples of male officers also abusing their power.

    I seem to recall the phrase "Better than ten guilty men should go free than one innocent man should die" being bandied about by various people.

    I see that it is in operation in CA, although perhaps "men" should be replaced by "cops".

    ReplyDelete
  83. Not sure who Cail is, but perhaps you should read for context in what I wrote. Not once in all the FTP posts have I called for police murder or tough guy antics. My posts are simply observing the why behind white pussification.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Because we are at such a disadvantage, we HAVE to escalate faster than men would.

    You actually don't. It's extremely easy to kill or permanently maim any person and you could wait until you would actually be justified in doing so and then do it, with no argument from me or anyone else.

    It doesn't matter how big someone is, if you pierce their eyes with something sharp, they won't be wanting to attack you anymore. You don't need to do it preemptively (no one does), and you wouldn't be justified in doing so, but after they have made clear an intention to cause you grievous harm by striking you harder and harder when you aren't reciprocating or slamming your head into something repeatedly, doing this would immediately end the confrontation.

    As a smaller person you don't have to escalate faster, you simply have to make every hit a grievous one to some soft target. Using a strategy like this, honor, prudence, and basic humanity would dictate that you give the attacker every chance to stop before you cripple them for life.

    In other words, the opposite of what you said is true. You should exercise restraint until the other person's escalated violence poses a severe physical risk to you,at which point you may then justifiably unleash a single devastating attack that puts them out of commission.

    If instead you choose to merely escalate the situation faster, you will soon reach the cap for the amount of damage you can do (lacking any specialized knowledge of human anatomy) while your enraged attacker will continue to become more and more of a threat to you.
    The female revenge fantasy is not only morally unjustifiable, but also unsound martial practice which will probably get you killed if the person you preemptively attack is much larger and becomes enraged or frightened (States of emotion which the authors of these fantasies obviously hope to impose,based on the fact that they write about "looks that make you wet your pants" and such). If women had had to hunt wooly mammoths with spears and flint knives at some point, they'd probably instinctively know this, like most men do.

    The only circumstance in which I could see the female revenge fantasists' use of preemptive violence as justified would be in the case of a pregnant female who could not run and possibly couldn't employ the above suggested advice without endangering the life of her baby. In which case, the immediate escalation to extreme violence may not be necessary, but could at least be justified as having been thought to be necessary to protect a person's life and that would be good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Steve's comment reminds me of the final scene in the recent brilliant movie"End of Watch " wherein a male cop is blinded and a female cop is mercilessly overpowered and tortured by a huge male gang banger perp. When the city jail was closed here in Oakland a few jail guards were given other positions in unlikely depts, such as the library. One of the ex- guards tells us a lot of stories about the Oakland police. He says that most of the female officers get an ass whooping 1-2 years after they get on the force. He says after the assaults, they get a desk job, or some other job where they don't have to deal with large ruthless men in a physical capacity. I had a firefighter neighbor who verified this story, his fellow firefighter was married to a female Oakland cop who got her face dragged all over the concrete by a guy she was trying to arrest and she had to quit. A black co-worker told me about a picnic she was on when a group of cops came to a park in east Oakland to have a picnic too. The black co-worker's group ran over and commenced to stomping and beating the cops. My co-worker said,"they were stomping on the head of a lady police officer. She was trying to get to her car. I almost felt sorry for her but they oughta to do Black people like they do." We never hear about these attacks in the newspapers. There is only one female cop that the jail guard respects. Officer Wendy, a cop's cop who can handle herself in any situation.

    ReplyDelete
  86. insane white rabbit warrenAugust 03, 2013 2:48 PM

    knew a woman journeyman shipfitter back when the trades started affirmative action~ she was the one of the few who made thru those early hazing days... 6 foot four and all muscle. nobody fucked with her. she was crazy funny- wore nothing under her coveralls, and got young boy apprentices to reach in her pocket for a wrench...the look on their faces... now the trades are like the ambulance stories... bring backup

    ReplyDelete
  87. In the final analysis, a career criminal bit the dust by a brave female police officer. That saved the taxpayers about 40K. Anyone else who thinks differently is lying.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Isn't it just as consistent with the facts to attribute this to men being too stupidly macho to yield to a woman, even when she's pointing a gun at them? I mean, the perp is the one who tried to call the bluff of the person pointing a gun at him, only to find out it wasn't a bluff.

    Seems like if it had been a male cop, the difference in the outcome would have been that the perp followed orders, not that the perp yelled "What are you gonna do, a--hole" and the male cop then politely repeated himself and added with "and a cherry on top."

    Right?

    And why go to male/female differences anyway? One person gets killed by a cop during an arrest every day in the USA, is it that surprising for it to be a female cop sometimes?

    If you want to convince someone intelligent, find some data, instead of using an anecdote. (Unfortunately the most detailed study I could find was the BJS study on homicides by cops, and it only has data on the victims, not the cops http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=379).

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.