Posted on 12/03/2006 6:22:34 AM PST by Silly
How can you possibly say that when we're talking about a situation where the police were engaged in an undercover operation in which they made every attempt to hide their actual identities!
Because the badges -- which are extremely difficult to miss -- come out as soon as the fit hits the shan.
Also, the simple fact of the matter is this: If you've spent any time in that neighborhood or similar neighborhoods you know what cops look like, what kind of cars they drive, and how they operate. A suburban guy stuck in that situation might take a second and freeze up "huh, what's going on? What? What? A lot of shouting! Guns!" but not someone from the neighborhood.
Perhaps, but the police cannot have it both ways. If the police can legitimately shoot a guy reaching for his wallet on the grounds that they suspect he's reaching for a gun (this does happen occasionally -- including the infamous Amadou Diallo case in New York City a few years back), then they should not be surprised if a suspect or bystander has the same reaction when an undercover cop reaches for HIS wallet.
On a dark street in a bad neighborhood, with undercover cops operating in plain clothes, in the aftermath of a highly-charged incident involving someone who claimed to have a gun, etc., there is absolutely no reason to instinctively give the police the benefit of the doubt in this case.
In fact, there have been enough incidents involving NYC cops shooting unarmed civilians over the years that I would consider any statements by the police in this case highly suspect.
The Amadou Diallo case was a cultural screw up. The guy was from Africa. When confronted by the cops in Africa you reach for identification papers. When confronted by cops in NYC you reach for nothing and keep your hands in plain sight.
And the Patrick Dorismond case was not.
The very nature of undercover police work tells me that there is a good possibility nobody in the car knew who those undercover officers were. That case in Georgia a few weeks ago involving the 92 year-old woman who shot a couple of cops breaking into her house is a good example of what can happen in situations like this.
Looks like the police have been just as effective in their war against this club as in the war on drugs. I'm beginning to think the collateral damage, here and abroad, isn't worth it.
...and then there's the case in NYC where the undercover gun buy went bad and the two officers were shot execution style.
cops are well aware that there are very, very bad guys out there.
undercover work has value as a police tool, but it is high risk.
True. But I have long believed we crossed a very fine line as a country once we stopped thinking of police officers as enforcers of the law and started using them as "crime prevention agents" in cases like this. Engaging in undercover work in a preventive mode (i.e., "the war on drugs," "getting illegal guns off the street," etc.) is a waste of taxpayer resources and really has no place in a free country.
The same function used to be performed by cops on the beat. Store owners, old ladies, etc. would come up to the cop and tell them what was going on and they'd prevent crimes from happening. When we put cops into cars that information dried up.
On the other side, there are many who complain that cops do nothing but respond after the crime is committed and that they simply take reports.
The public can't have it both ways.
The "cop on the beat" was not a solution, he was part of a serious underlying problem -- in which ordinary people stopped thinking of themselves as responsible citizens with their own sense of duty and obligation in a "law enforcement" capacity.
Historically, the role of the county sheriff in rural parts of America was particularly illuminating. The sheriff was not a "law enforcement officer" in the sense that he was tasked with preventing crimes and/or dealing with criminals on his own. Rather, his job was to function in a protective capacity for criminals themselves to ensure that accused criminals were prosecuted and tried within the limits of the law -- rather than apprehended by a group of armed citizens and strung up from a tree.
I agree with you 100%. Imagine how much more responsible people would have to be if they didn't have it EITHER way.
Areas with high-density populations need regular professional policing. It's a fact.
If they didn't have liberal judges to deal with, this club would have been closed down ages ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.