[Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

[Melodye Rosales]

Amazing---if anyone caught Penny For Your Thoughts today---all the callers
for the last week have spoken as if they know what happened and how bad the
kids are because they lack parenting---some spoke of the black community as
a whole in that regard. But when I call in today and said that, "... I find
it interesting that when Black Folk speak of injustice we are said to be
using the race card, but when the callers on your (Turpins) show criticize
our community with misnomers and lack of information, they are
justified----I think that the community needs Diversity Training."

The guy who followed called me "Arrogant".  For those of us (most on this
list) who understand what that word means when referring to a Black person,
coming from a Conservative White person, it is coded language that needs no
Decoder.  Turpin (who seems frustrated I have called daily to correct the
mis-statements that he allows to fester) made sure when the caller didn't
catch my name, to let him know---more over, let his audience know that I am
someone to watch.

My concern is that a large majority in the Conservative Community are
purposely trying to allow mis-statements to take flight.  It is almost as if
they want to sway those who may visit the matter with open eyes, to feel
that if they align their concerns with ours, then they somehow aren't caring
about the "Good White Community".  The tragedy is that while we are simply
trying to push for open government and transparency, while trying to
highlight a flawed local government and provide more equitable solutions to
bring about a more balanced and inclusive community----these Conservatives
are using their energies to push us back into the place they feel we
belong------without a voice.  "After all", the Conservatives cry out, "why
do them-folk need a voice?  We've always told them what to do, what not to
do, where to go, when to come back and how to behave. 'Cause they know we
ain't toleratin' no back talk, no complaints, no questions.  So ya see,
that's why them-folk don't need no voice. It's them Arrogant Ns who are
causing the trouble. They be confusing them-folk.  They be tellin' them-folk
they done always had a voice and they just gotta begin using it. Yep, it's
them Arrogant Ns who are gonna get them-folk in trouble, not us."

What a sad 1950s moment this community is experiencing...

-M



On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:32 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

> >It sounds as though there should be something in writing about
> >what are appropriate conditions for making an arrest, and for that matter,
> >for stopping people in general.
>
> There probably are in both the administrative departmental polices as well
> as in state and federal statutes and administrative policies, rules and
> regulations; but they are written in such general vague and ambiguous terms
> and fashion as to allow all kinds of interpretation.  Any limitations,
> restrictions, or criteria are neither that detailed not that precise.  Laws
> are typically general and abstract and not usually specific, detailed or
> precise.  Moreover, benefit of the doubt is always on the state's side
> which
> means the police's advantage when it comes to interpreting and applying the
> laws to concrete situations.  As for the circular nature of using resisting
> arrest as a basis for making an arrest even if the defendant is not charged
> with another offense or that charge is dropped it is the way the law works
> since it treats resisting arrest as a crime separate and independent of any
> other crime so they are not legally related. To change things, one would
> have to change the laws to read that a charge of resisting arrest cannot be
> made or pursued if other charges are dropped or not pressed; and if other
> charges are dropped, the arresting officer is and/or police department is
> open to false arrest law suits.  This would hold officers responsible for
> their charges and put suspected offenders in jeopardy of having to go to
> court to fight charges that might otherwise have been droipped.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:00 PM
> To: Karen Medina
> Cc: Peace-discuss List; Stuart Levy; discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:41:54PM -0500, Karen Medina wrote:
> > > deadly force is permissible if the officer can say they're trying to
> make an arrest.
> >
> > Does it say anywhere that they have to have a good reason to arrest
> someone?
> > In the past, there has been this circular argument that they were
> > arresting people for resisting arrest.
>
> That's a good question.  Do we have any entire police procedure manual,
> or only its use-of-force section?
>
> It sounds as though there should be something in writing about
> what are appropriate conditions for making an arrest, and for that matter,
> for stopping people in general.
>
> The ILEAP (accreditation) manual's
>        http://www.humanspan.com/uploads/archives/4341/ILEAPManual09.pdf
> section on Limits of Authority (ADM.02.02, page 41) says:
>
>    ADM.02.02 A written directive governs procedures for assuring compliance
> with all
>    applicable constitutional requirements including:
>
>    a. Interviews;
>    b. Interrogations;
>    c. Access to counsel;
>    d. Search and seizure, with a warrant;
>    e. Search and seizure, without a warrant;
>    f. Stop and frisk;
>    g. Arrest made, with a warrant;
>    h. Arrest made, without a warrant;
>    i. Assuring all constitutional safeguards are provided to non-English
> speaking persons in a
>    manner that is clearly understood; and
>    j. Assuring all constitutional safeguards are provided to hearing
> impaired persons in a manner
>    that is clearly understood.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091023/8014f011/attachment.html