The insanity spreads
Aug. 4th, 2005 09:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumFrom today's Washington Post: Police Chiefs Group Bolsters Policy on Suicide Bombers
The short version, "If he looks suspicious, shoot him in the head"
Honest, read it for yourself. The relevant grafs are, The police group's guidelines also say the threat to officers does not have to be "imminent," as police training traditionally teaches. Officers do not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move, another traditional requirement for police to use deadly force. An officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb, the guidelines say.
Last year, Gainer retrained his officers to shoot to kill when faced with a suspected suicide bomber who is uncooperative and refuses to stop and be searched. Other law enforcement officials say they are debating the issue and might follow his lead if there is a suicide bombing in this country.
There you go. A suspect is presumed guilty, so guilty we have to kill him.
Under those guidelines the NYPD doing subway searches would be allowed to shoot someone who walks away from a search.
Under those guidelines things like, "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather or carrying a briefcase, duffle bag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires. The person might display nervousness, an unwillingness to make eye contact or excessive sweating. There might be chemical burns on the clothing or stains on the hands. The person might mumble prayers or be "pacing back and forth in front of a venue." are grounds for suspecting someone to be a suicide bomber, and so shooting them in the head.
Not to be too much of a chicken little, but this is a potent tool for repression. Don't like a protest group, unless they are naked you can probably find a couple who look like a bomber, and shoot them. The protest will probably be broken up, and the debate won't be about the thing protested, but rather if the cop had, "reasonable basis" under the guidelines, to think maybe there was a bomb under the the coats.
Am I going overboard? Lord! I hope so.
On the other hand, this policy is overboard. We have enough problems with the shooting policies in effect now. Amadou Diallo was reaching for his wallet. He was shot by four, plainclothes, cops. They said they thought he had a gun. OK, maybe they did think that, but the flip side is, what was he supposed to do? Four guys, in street clothes assault you? Honestly, if he'd had a gun I don't think I'd fault him for deciding his life was in immediate danger and trying to defend himself(well it's poor judgement to try and draw when the other guy has his weapon cleared, much less four weapons, but...). That sort of slack (the "but think about the decision the officer has to make, what if he's wrong?)needs to be cut for the victim of such shootings too. Because in Diallo's case, and de Menezes, the cops were wrong, and wrong in the way I think more heinous... they killed an innocent, as a foreseeable result of reasonable reactions. Hell, in Diallo's case he was doing what the cops say to do, not resisting what looked like a mugging, and giving up his wallet.
But we give the cops some pretty large immunity. "Good Faith." Bah. It was, "Good Faith" which had a squad of LAPD cops tailing known bad guys, and not arresting them. The argument was a parole violation would be small potatoes, they wanted to get them on a new crime. OK. I can see the logic (it's twisted, because they weren't following these guys 24/7, so they had time they could commit crimes and not get stopped). The problem is they didn't arrest them when they saw them committing these crimes, no; to protect the public they shot them. Often in the back, more than once before the new crime was committed.
They knew, you see, that he was going to rob the bank, or do something other terrible deed. It's been alleged that, at least once, they used a drop gun on a guy because he wasn't armed (which would have made the whole needed to shoot him to protect people from him sort of weak in police reports, much less in court).
I'm rambling, ranting even, because this scares me. Who watches the guardians? When we let fear rule our hearts, and say we want no risk, no danger; to be swaddled in cotton wool and protected from any harsh possibilty we lose so much.
We used to say we were willing to take risks to be free. We are (it seems) as a culture electing to give that up.
Not to belittle the horror of That Tuesday, but it was the concentration which made it so horrible. We accept ten times that many deaths on the road,, every year. I, for one, am willing to risk a bomb to avoid a police state, where carte blanche is given to the cops to shoot me; in the head, for my protection.
The short version, "If he looks suspicious, shoot him in the head"
Honest, read it for yourself. The relevant grafs are, The police group's guidelines also say the threat to officers does not have to be "imminent," as police training traditionally teaches. Officers do not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move, another traditional requirement for police to use deadly force. An officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb, the guidelines say.
Last year, Gainer retrained his officers to shoot to kill when faced with a suspected suicide bomber who is uncooperative and refuses to stop and be searched. Other law enforcement officials say they are debating the issue and might follow his lead if there is a suicide bombing in this country.
There you go. A suspect is presumed guilty, so guilty we have to kill him.
Under those guidelines the NYPD doing subway searches would be allowed to shoot someone who walks away from a search.
Under those guidelines things like, "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather or carrying a briefcase, duffle bag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires. The person might display nervousness, an unwillingness to make eye contact or excessive sweating. There might be chemical burns on the clothing or stains on the hands. The person might mumble prayers or be "pacing back and forth in front of a venue." are grounds for suspecting someone to be a suicide bomber, and so shooting them in the head.
Not to be too much of a chicken little, but this is a potent tool for repression. Don't like a protest group, unless they are naked you can probably find a couple who look like a bomber, and shoot them. The protest will probably be broken up, and the debate won't be about the thing protested, but rather if the cop had, "reasonable basis" under the guidelines, to think maybe there was a bomb under the the coats.
Am I going overboard? Lord! I hope so.
On the other hand, this policy is overboard. We have enough problems with the shooting policies in effect now. Amadou Diallo was reaching for his wallet. He was shot by four, plainclothes, cops. They said they thought he had a gun. OK, maybe they did think that, but the flip side is, what was he supposed to do? Four guys, in street clothes assault you? Honestly, if he'd had a gun I don't think I'd fault him for deciding his life was in immediate danger and trying to defend himself(well it's poor judgement to try and draw when the other guy has his weapon cleared, much less four weapons, but...). That sort of slack (the "but think about the decision the officer has to make, what if he's wrong?)needs to be cut for the victim of such shootings too. Because in Diallo's case, and de Menezes, the cops were wrong, and wrong in the way I think more heinous... they killed an innocent, as a foreseeable result of reasonable reactions. Hell, in Diallo's case he was doing what the cops say to do, not resisting what looked like a mugging, and giving up his wallet.
But we give the cops some pretty large immunity. "Good Faith." Bah. It was, "Good Faith" which had a squad of LAPD cops tailing known bad guys, and not arresting them. The argument was a parole violation would be small potatoes, they wanted to get them on a new crime. OK. I can see the logic (it's twisted, because they weren't following these guys 24/7, so they had time they could commit crimes and not get stopped). The problem is they didn't arrest them when they saw them committing these crimes, no; to protect the public they shot them. Often in the back, more than once before the new crime was committed.
They knew, you see, that he was going to rob the bank, or do something other terrible deed. It's been alleged that, at least once, they used a drop gun on a guy because he wasn't armed (which would have made the whole needed to shoot him to protect people from him sort of weak in police reports, much less in court).
I'm rambling, ranting even, because this scares me. Who watches the guardians? When we let fear rule our hearts, and say we want no risk, no danger; to be swaddled in cotton wool and protected from any harsh possibilty we lose so much.
We used to say we were willing to take risks to be free. We are (it seems) as a culture electing to give that up.
Not to belittle the horror of That Tuesday, but it was the concentration which made it so horrible. We accept ten times that many deaths on the road,, every year. I, for one, am willing to risk a bomb to avoid a police state, where carte blanche is given to the cops to shoot me; in the head, for my protection.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 05:03 pm (UTC)It's much, much too vague and subjective if we're talking
about the right to execute people without due process.
I hope you're (we're) overreacting, too. But at this point, no amount of overreaction is *enough*; every paranoid fear of mine about each policy of this government has come true, and been worse than I could have imagined.
It could most definitely be a tool of repression. After all, firing into innocent crowds is a pretty good way of controlling the situation - if you're a tyrant.
Meanwhile, from the same paper : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Rubber hoses. You know, "beating with rubber hoses" used to be shorthand for "the kind of vicious tactics that no one in this country is allowed to or would wish to use." seriously, that makes me want to cry.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 05:06 pm (UTC)Most of what I can find which uses the term relates to trade and taxes.
The crux of constitutional questions relating to it seems to be to be this:
Of equal importance was the elaboration
in adjudication under the clause of a concept of ``fundamental'' rights
as to which a government must if it acts so as to restrict the exercise
of one of these rights show not merely a reasonable basis for its
actions but a justification based upon necessity, compelling necessity.
From the 1992 edition of the Government Printing Office Preface to the Constitution.
I can easily see the courts, in the present mindset, arguing necessity for these actions. They would be wrong, but I can see that being the holding.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 05:08 pm (UTC)"They would be wrong, but I can see that being the holding." Yeah, me too. Scary.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 05:20 pm (UTC)Of course we have Ambassador "What death squads" Negroponte over there now, so this wasn't as much of a shock as it ought have been.
Insane.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 08:44 pm (UTC)-- Police Chiefs Group Bolsters Policy on Suicide Bombers
Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution
But, hey, what does a two-hundred-and-fifteen year old document know, anyway...
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 03:42 pm (UTC)To answer your question, I'm putting on my official Antonin Scalia Thinking Cap (tm):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"People are only guaranteed to be secure from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. Not only is it reasonable for police to shoot anyone they feel like shooting, it's not even a search or seizure: just a killing. Nothing in the 4th amendment about being secure against getting shot in the head several times!"
This moment has been brought to you by self-serving assinine psuedo-logic, and the letter V.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 06:28 pm (UTC)No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-04 09:49 pm (UTC)