Definitely seen excessive use of force against seemingly peaceful protesters, but context is everything, and a 10 second snippet does not tell the full story of the interactions between that protester and that cop for the 45 minutes leading up to those 10 seconds.
I tend to reserve my judgement on those types of videos, since cops have been also taking a beating in the last few days with bricks, rocks, water bottles, etc... thrown at them off camera or before those clips start, where the convenient "editing" is done to portray the cops as the "bad guys" when often they have spent the last hour being insulted, assaulted and injured before they decide to move in with force on that "peaceful" protester...
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/cop-put-baton-george-floyd-pr...
What possible context would make that okay? In what possible scenario is putting a man's hand on a weapon for the sole purpose of harming him reliant on context?
These are not meant at all to be snarky, these are my very real questions, because I'm confused by your statements.
It's a case of officers committing perjury as to the events that occurred to figuratively put a weapon into the scene.
The DAs slides https://twitter.com/wsbtv/status/1267843835889156097/photo/1
Also who gives a shit if they just got verbally harassed for an hour. I don’t get to lose my shit and delete a project because someone keeps submitting bad code. Why do cops get to lose their temper when their job is to keep the peace and enforce the law. Learn to control yourself and do your job or find another profession.
This statement is emblematic of the fundamental problem affecting our culture.
I hate excessive violence. I hate excessive force. I can’t take anyone seriously if they argue that bad behavior doesn’t matter. Your 8 hour day in retail or at the office is not the same as working law enforcement during a riot.
It is entitlement or stupidity.
That's institutionalized malice aforethought in my book.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-car...
1. police forces need to limit their time, and forces that do not need to held accountable
2. they need to not be police
They _need_ to be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
This means Chauvin could say he was acting under the "color of law" when he attempted to restrain George Floyd and during his restraint is when Floyd died. Because Chauvin was acting as a police officer and not a legal citizen, it was within his official duty as a police officer to apprehend someone who is breaking the law.
However, in the initial part of the statue, it clearly states:
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
This also means the prosecution can simply say that Chauvin was a known racist and violent around black people and his restraint was not an approved technique for restraining or arresting someone, therefore, based on those facts, the prosecution can make a compelling case that Chauvin attempted to use "color of law" to cover his willful infliction and in doing so, deprived George Floyd of his civil rights while doing so.
The shorter answer is yes, they can lose their temper because it might be required in the application of their duties as a police officer and officer of the government for which they serve. No, in that they cannot abuse that power and use "color of law" to deprive someone of their civil rights under the constitution.
I really feel sorry for the people in uniform who are genuinely trying to make a difference, when the few bad apples make sure that nobody can have nice things.
Something had to give though. There are only so many blatant crimes that can be committed by police only to go unpunished before people say Enough!
Worst of all, we are not talking about crimes that can be repaid or repaired. Murder is the ultimate crime in some sense as (ignoring religion) it's irreversible and the loss the victim and their loved ones have suffered is the ultimate loss that we can never undo.
The callousness and carelessness with which these crimes were carried out and the complete lack of remorse or even acknowledgment from leading figures in police unions is basically just more fuel on the fire.
The countless acts of kindness and compassion of (I assume) the majority of officers is unfortunately drowned out by these bad examples.
Something has to change. The police force clearly does not have the ability or will to solve this problem on their own.
This is probably the most disturbing thing I read about law enforcement. To me it translates into following: as an officer acting under "color of law" I am free to loose my temper and kill whoever the f..k I want for any reason as long as I am not doing it based on color/race/whatever. All I have to do is to "pretend to act in the performance of my duties".
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong (I sincerely hope I am).
What GP is referring to is a provision in the federal law that specifically criminalizes police activity undertaken under color of law. (Reading the statute, in this scenario, the police officer can be charged up to and including the death penalty).
As far as I'm aware, states' statutes for murder or manslaughter do not protect people acting under color of law.
Phew. thank you. Hopefully maiming is not protected as well.