-- Comment At Your Own Risk --
I would not be so hasty with judgment. First, many in the media treat our cops and military the same as they treat the US. That is, the US, military, and police are all evil, or as one of their heroes and his little gang wrote in the blood of their victims, pigs. (and come on, the LA Times?)
In any case, I trust cops more than I trust the media unless ample proof is available, independent of the media. It sounds like a really weak story. As well, it takes next to nothing to get a crowd willing to kill cops in some places. It used to be just a minority thing, but it seems to be infecting upper and middle class whites now too. I guess it's the rap generation.
If there are bad cops, there are more and worse reporters. And even more and worse people who initially are acting erratically. As well, some damn the cops for not doing enough, then turn around and do the opposite. The people in that neighborhood rarely receive police protection because it is simply too dangerous for cops. How many calls did it take, and why would his generally close mouthed compatriots have called in, what, exactly, was he doing? I would guess he was scaring the hell out of people, and that is not easy to do in the hood (nor wise, for a thousand reasons).
I prefer dead goblins to dead cops, this sounds like a goblin, or someone about to become one. Somehow I would guess this was not his first scrape, though it definitely was his last. I guess, in my book, he won't be missed, in any case.
I did find it interesting that the very crowd that called the cops on this probably inebriated/stoned fellow turned on those same cops as soon as the job was done.
While I don't share Doom's reflexive support for cops, I do think that there are two stories here, and that of the dead dude is being told. Long Beach is a tough hood, and Doom's right that hatin on cops by majority minorities is great sport there.
That said, I lack faith that if there were any wrongdoing on the part of the police, that it would be taken care of. Job #1 for a bureaucrat is to protect other bureaucrat's jobs, unless political pressure prevents you from doing so. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? (I apologize in advance if I butchered the Latin).
It is for this reason that, even if the cops were able to tell their story, it would sound like "blame the victim" and no one would believe them, even if they were totally justified in ventilating this fellow a few times.
The guy who taught me to box was a brittle diabetic. He was also a fighter.
At least once a month, I'd see him have an insulin reaction. The first time I didn't fully understand it, though he had warned me about them. He had picked me up to go to lunch were we were going to talk business and he was sweating profusely and acting goofy. Before he lost full rationality, he told me he just needed sugar (he had glucose packs in his car).
I got him the pack which he sucked down pretty fast, but 'forced' him to drive to the hospital parking lot. He didn't want to pay for a visit since he knew he'd be OK, but I was over reacting in a controlled way. I figured at the hospital I'd be able to get him immediate medical care ASAP. I expected him to need it.
Little did I know.
Later on, I'd see that glazed look in his eye and know he needed some fruit juice. "Hey Scott, you need some juice" and he'd thank me and pop a can out of his bag and drink it.
He fully expected, one day, to have a reaction in the wrong place at the wrong time and have the cops get involved. To most people, he'd appear drunk or on drugs. While we respected each other (he was 2/3's my size and 10 years older, but he could have kicked my ass without breaking a sweat) if a cop ordered him to do something, I doubt he'd have complied. It would not have gone well.
There's erratic dangerous people, but I think erratic safe people are more prevalent, though just as likely to get shot by police. Especially today when they are taught to take control of the situation, no matter what, and allowed to use deadly force to do so.
Doom,
Don't take this the wrong way, but if you honestly believe that it's the "rap generation," you haven't been paying attention. People have come to hate the cops in all classes because law enforcement culture has been taken over by thugs, idiots and jackboots. Follow the number of cases where the cops look dumbfounded that anyone would question the wisdom of them storming a house with full battle armor and assault weaponry over mere low-level drug charges. They can't imagine why the public is uncomfortable with that, and expects them to exercise far better judgment than that.
The police can get away with just about any act of stupidity, poor judgment or nearly criminal behavior by simply pointing like a monkey to a policy or procedure. Prosecutors pretty much never bring charges against police, even when they do things like kill people in raids where they not only got the wrong address, but didn't even verify the information they were working on. Hell, read up on the case of Sal Culosi, a Northern Virginia doctor who was shot through the heart by a SWAT officer "by accident" as he walked out his door to go to work. His crime? Placing a friendly bet at a sports bar with an undercover vice cop trolling for a cheap notch on his belt.
The police have it amazingly easy today. They are the most heavily armed group in society, and they rarely get called out by the government for their behavior.
Doom, bad reporters don't go around shooting innocent civilians. Besides that, as far as the media goes, cops and firefighters are still worshiped as heroes unless it's a white cop shooting a black man, then the media really gets in to it.
I went back and checked the link, the story has been updated. Apparently it was a Samoan man according to witnesses, he was shot in the back while laying on the sidewalk. It also seems the cops jumped out of the car with their batons at the ready and started hitting him right away. It sounds like his only real crime was trying to defend himself against aggressive cops. I guess self-defense against cops is a capital offense.
I hope nobody takes any of this wrong. Even if we disagree, it is hoped, unlike at female controlled blogs, we can merely agree to disagree? I have been banned at one, if that is a risk here, I would rather a warning and then just end my affiliation.
I think the media does get people killed. In their support of radical movements (the popularity of the Weather Underground, among others), through their support of cop killers and terrorists (free Mumai (sp?) ring a bell? freedom fighters anyone?), in their underreporting of black on white violence they do not serve their function. Yes, the media does kill, and it means it. That the reporters are too pussified to do it themselves only makes them more, not less, culpable. (What was that, something about not letting US soldiers know they are about to be ambushed so as to get a "good story" and be "impartial"? Do you honestly think that is just foreign? How many cops have died exactly for this reason?)
Now, are there too many police? Most likely, thanks to Clinton. I do not believe he got the 100,000 extra cops he wanted, but I bet he did increase the numbers a great deal and began a trend. Are cops less closely monitored and supervised? Probably, though rightly or wrongly, this is almost always the case during times of national threat (whether you believe in the threat or not, that is the way of it with forces projected abroad in reaction to, and then pro-actively after, a serious series of domestic attacks.)
I would guess we disagree, mostly, about the War, about a short term more aggressive police force, and about some other things. Still, there is room for some agreement. I generally do not agree with no-knock searches unless they are very closely monitored and exactly performed. There are people who cannot be treated "fairly", and should not be treated fairly. Yet the general public should never come into contact with shock troops. That could be argued to be a technical breach of posse comitatus, in that thought it is not actual federal troops, it is a tactic they have developed. And, ATF, Forest Ranger special squads, poorly trained SWAT teams, IRS special teams, yeah, I think we could probably agree about those being overboard and out-of-control, probably just by their existence.
ATF should be the name of a corner store, not a government agency. And, yes, I believe that.
I have been banned at one, if that is a risk here, I would rather a warning and then just end my affiliation.
Doom, that's the funniest thing I've seen on this blog yet. Ok, not really. But seriously, I don't ban for disagreements.
There are people who cannot be treated "fairly", and should not be treated fairly.
Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. Follow the warrants. It's not too much to ask and if you start making exceptions for the obvious scum it puts the rest of us in danger because at any point, any of us could (in the eyes of the law) become that scum.
Homeschooling parents, "radical" Christians, defenders of the Constitution, gun collectors, bloggers,etc. We're subversives by virtue of our belief in liberty and our aversion to simply excepting what the government tells us about things.
Now that I think about it Doom, maybe I should ban you just for asking if you were going to get banned! :P
Just kidding, dissenting opinions are fine here.
"Now that I think about it Doom, maybe I should ban you just for asking if you were going to get banned! :P"
Good point! And, actually, I was laughing when I wrote that. Reading it over, however, allows me to see that my jest was probably missed. I was laughing at the memory of a girl not being able to take a debate or disagreement so offering me banishment or requiring an apology. Nope! It was fun. :p But if you ban me, do it because I write too much. Even I get tired of reading my own stuff.
"Yet the general public should never come into contact with shock troops....I think we could probably agree about those being overboard and out-of-control, probably just by their existence."
Here's the problem with militarized police...the mentality that goes with it. If you see everyone as a potential threat, and act accordingly, you cannot and will not pay the proper attention to the rights of the people you are engaging. People become merely targets to be serviced, or collateral damage.
There is little place for shock troops in civil law enforcement, and then only applied narrowly under the strictest of controls in the most extreme of circumstances. The vast majority of situations, you can just wait out the perps, rather than go full-breach Waco style. This preserves human life and human rights.
And Doom, I don't think that arguing that militarized police fall under Posse Comitatus is a viable argument. If they're not under the control of the Army, they're home free; even so, the PCA has been significantly eroded since 1980 by the War on Drugs and other Wars on Whatevers.
Of course the solution to all this is to actually use the posse comitatus to enforce the law. I suspect a man's neighbors are going to use far more restraint than some trigger-happy 19 year old with a gun trying to prove how bad-ass he is.
Since this comment is approaching Doom-length, I figure I'll stop here.
"There are people who cannot be treated "fairly", and should not be treated fairly." --- Doom
Gotta go with Dif on this one. I don't trust any cops to determine which "undesirables" shouldn't get their rights.
It took me a long time to come around to thinking that there are a lot of cops that just plain need killing. But here I am. Whose fault is that?
Just kidding, dissenting opinions are fine here.
But only if the Difster commands you to dissent, first.
Doom,
I'm confused, you agree that the gov't is oversize, technically in breach of posse comitatus, and a bit out of control. You also state that the MSM is not working for the best interests of the our country, but rather theirs at risk and loss of US Troops. You blame the Clintons for a significant growth of the police state and yet you worry that you are somehow dissenting against the personal liberties that the author of this blog believes we all should have.
Now I'm just a simple guy. Can you please explain where the argument is?
AJW308,
There is not a lot to explain. It is sort of like agreeing that war is hell, then re-enlisting or something. War is hell, and sometimes hell is necessary. Oh, that was a jest, regarding wondering whether I could debate here. I honestly apologize for it coming out sounding so wrong. My writing is generally better. I chalk it up to it having been a long day and me being unusually tired. (yes, for me, 20:00 can be very late and be a long day, I am a light-weight at times). I was laughing about a recent happening, an inside joke no one else knew about.
As for the police, I think they end up being out of bounds, though the media is just as bad. Oddly though, the root of both being out of bounds seems to be the same. The root cause is socialism and further, the leftism from there on to communism and into nihilism. I suppose the reason I support cops (at least over msm) is because I suspect a forced imperfect civil styled socialism (cop based) is better than a nihilistic one (radical msm based). Of course, these things are shades, and variable within their own spheres so that sometimes one might be better than the other, other times perhaps not. Another thing, I have seen cops with many different views, political affiliations, and such, I do not see this variability in the media. And, of course, this is based on my beliefs (which are anchored in a religious based moral and ethical understanding, to my capacity to understand the world, myself, God, etc.).
Do I believe in a police state? No, it never works. Does it make sense at times? Yes, both for periods of time and regarding particularly difficult affairs, I think some allowances have to be made. We just disagree and what, when, and where. Of course, the option is civilians doing the tasks. That is much less satisfactory, I think, as a general rule. As far as the militarization of the police forces, they have had limited choice. Look to Mexico to see what happens if this doesn't occur. It ends up requiring the actual military coming in.
I have noted that most who disagree, once terms are defined and understandings of concepts become common, have differences based mainly upon those underlying beliefs. Therefore, many arguments can never be satisfactorily answered to both parties satisfaction.
Get rid of the welfare state and the useless drug war. Problems solved.
Too bad that will never happen. Until the next Depression hits and inner city folks are turning to cannibalism.
"a man who was acting erratically"
How could they tell in Long Beach?
Stupid cops.
Spitters are quitters.
....;0)....
Commenting by HaloScan
