@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
Not only did the police target this black man for essentially no reason (really? You chase a driver, which is dangerous to the entire community, because he's missing a mud flap?), the responding officers gave mixed commands at the same time, and then assaulted him with a dog while he had already surrendered.
Anyone want to bet that the culprit here gets a paid vacation while his department investigates and finds no wrongdoing?
We need to redo the police system in the US from the ground up.
The crime was driving while black. The cruelty is the point.
Don't forget the power tripping. That's a big part of the point as well.
Yep. The point is to either force the "undesirables" into an underclass or to leave.
We need to redo the police system in the US from the ground up.
The system works exactly as designed.
k9 units are medieval levels of behind the times. but toxic masculinity thinks they're cool.
They are also worse than random chance at actually doing the one thing police claim technology can't match: drug and bomb sniffing. Dogs just want to go take a nap or get a treat, and their handlers are cops who just think everything is suspicious so of course they get lots of "hits".
It's essentially the same bullshit that hoodwinked the world with Coco the "signing" guerilla for a couple of decades.
The fact that handlers can fake a "hit" wherever and whenever they want is the entire point, and also the reason they resist moving over to technical solutions. Those technologies also come with logging, which is another point against them as far as cops are concerned.
It's always been about control and cruelty.
They're still around to use as bullshit "probable cause" to hassle and search people's cars for drugs. Because the war on drugs was a good idea, and dogs have not repeatedly been shown to be complete bullshit. They indicate when their handler wants them to. It's been proven so many times. Yet, it's probable cause.
More from the article:
"Do not release the dog with his hands up!" a trooper can be heard yelling multiple times ahead of Speakman releasing the dog.
The video shows the dog running towards Rose, who came to his knees as Speakman released the K9.
Video appears to show the dog biting and pulling Rose by his arm as he screams loudly.
"Get it off!" Rose screams repeatedly.
"Get the dog off of him!" a trooper is heard yelling.
Other officers on the scene can be heard calling for a first aid kit.
It's not clear if the officer responsible for directing the dog to attack Rose is facing any disciplinary action.
Of course not, any disciplinary action will wait until the department's PR department has established whether or not there is a significant media backlash. Bad publicity (potentially spurring ethical reform) is the only reason a cop ever gets disciplined, after all.
Even if the officer gets fired there's nothing stopping him from applying for and getting a job in a different precinct.
Even if it was a known murderer, there is zero practical reason to engage in a projected car chase.
Not to mention, why do we need armed militia to enforce traffic laws? you know, the thing that usually has a maximum penalty in the hundreds of dollars? These aren't even real crimes! Somehow we figured out that parking meters don't need guns or tasers, but why did we stop there?
The armed militia is need to terrorize and intimidate the population. They're doing exactly what they're being paid for.
stories like these are too common. seems like the standard is for them to get a vacation when caught being cruel.
Sounds like Jadarrius had a good reason to not stop when the cops tried to flag him down for nothing at all. He knew this was going to be a "driving while black" stop and his life was at high risk.
My thought exactly. He probably didn't stop because he knew he was targeted and was in danger. And he was right.
A later, follow-up news source has reported that the driver had talked to a police dispatcher and "was afraid for his life".
And he was clearly right to be.
OK, so what's the plan then? Just keep driving and hope they get bored?
Involving others so there are witnesses may have saved his life, or at least more serious injuries. The driver is alive, so he at least accomplished that part.
Once they get him stopped, get him out of the vehicle, and have his hands up, he's surrendering. He got multiple conflicting commands....and with the presence of the dog he was rightfully concerned they were going to have it tackle him...that's exactly what happened. So his concern about the dog probably caused him to ignore a command or two, because he was fearing the dog attacking him. Take the dog out of the equation and he probably surrenders peacefully and obeys commands. Conflicting commands and the presence of the dog are absolutely the problems here.
They will be put on paid leave and any lawsuit filed will be thrown out because of qualified immunity...even though the dog never should have come out of the holding vehicle. Could have a case of excessive force, but I doubt it. All of it will be excused as part of the police work, even the mauling.
The scenario you describe, and a limitless spectrum of other possibilities that could exist during any encounter, are the source of so much frustration for me when these events come up.
The person being interacted with could be exceptionally fearful, panicked, on drugs, drunk, having a medical event, deaf, experiencing mental health issues, severely autistic, or just stupid.
YET that person, who could be ANY of those things or more, becomes a justified target for violence the moment they fail to comply with an order that they may not be capable of understanding, or may be too deep into their own circumstances to understand or even process.
Meanwhile, the police they interact with who are (presumably, ostensibly) sober, well trained, mentally well, have backup available, and have a number of different options available to them, will always get a free pass for taking the opportunity to deploy that violence until and unless there's enough public outcry to force some action, and sometimes not even then.
How does that not strike anyone who reads it as an unacceptable framework for policing?
He was missing a mud flap. Certainly pulling guns and releasing dogs was required. Couldn't they just send his employer a ticket or call that "how's my driving?" number on the truck?