Miami Police Shoot Man to Death, Attempt to Steal/Destroy All Video Evidence of Shooting Man to Death

Miami Police shot up a vehicle and its occupant in the middle of a crowded neighborhood last Memorial Day weekend because they thought the driver was armed. Police chased Raymond Herisse to a stretch of Collins Street at 4 a.m., where more than a dozen officers unloaded their clips into Herisse's parked car (and Herisse). 

However, it's what Miami PD did after shooting Herisse that's got the department up against the wall.

Several people filmed the incident, one of them being West Palm Beach resident Narces Benoit, who captured the entire episode with his cell phone:

From the video: When the cops notice Benoit filming, they demand that he stop. Benoit puts his phone down by his side and returns to his car. As he's walking, he repeatedly says that he's filming the police and not doing anything wrong. The area is well lit, and Benoit isn't the only person filming. He is, however, the only person ignoring police commands to stop filming. 

The next time Benoit raises the camera, it’s to capture an adrenaline-fueled and agitated-looking Miami police officer circling his Ford Expedition, pointing a gun through the windows at Benoit and his girlfriend. Pretty soon, cops swarm the car and force Benoit and his girlfriend to exit the vehicle. 

Benoit’s girlfriend told the Miami Herald that police then “put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground.” According to Benoit, one officer handcuffed him, grabbed his phone, “smashed” it on the ground, and then put it back in Benoit’s pocket.

A week later, Miami PD is denying not that an officer took Benoit’s phone for no legally justifiable reason, and not that Benoit was arrested despite having done nothing wrong, but that the officer “smashed” Benoit’s phone:

[A]n unsigned statement issued late Tuesday by a city spokeswoman took issue with Benoit’s statements. The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene, and that he ignored officers’ demands to stop. He was taken in for questioning as a witness, the statement said.

The statement also questioned Benoit’s account that an officer “smashed” his phone — the city e-mailed photos of the phone’s front and back showing only small cracks on the lower right front screen — and said Benoit didn’t turn over a copy of the video until he was served with a subpoena.

“This damage does not appear consistent with Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media that his phone was ‘smashed,’ ” the statement said.

The statement added that several other cellphones were seized by police during the investigation. Benoit’s allegations — coupled with a WPLG-ABC 10 report that an officer temporarily seized one of its video cameras after the fatal shooting of Raymond Herisse — have spurred criticism from photojournalists and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Reason.tv on the war on cameras:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Matrix||

    old news is old. We've been talking about this for days now.

  • Hank||

    Asshole is assholish.

    The post is about the statement from the department, which came out today.

  • -||

    Waiting for the "updates" that "clarify" the factual errors...

  • ||

    “This damage does not appear consistent with Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media that his phone was ‘smashed,’ ” the statement said.

    This makes me think of the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch.

  • ||

    "Smashed? No,no. It's just in sleep mode."

  • Matrix||

    "It's pining for the tower signal."

  • ||

    Nokia Blue - lovely color.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Not only was his phone not "smashed," as far as we could tell, it wasn't even buzzed.

  • Almanian||

    It was restin' after a prolonged text.

  • ||

    win!

  • Mr Whipple||

    It froze during multiple app updates.

  • Matt Felch||

    Please change "unloaded their clips" to "unloaded their magazines".

  • ||

    I've always thought of unloading as involving the removal of unfired rounds.

    I believe the technical term for a bunch of cops blasting away at someone is "panic fire".

  • ||

    Emptying their guns in his general direction.

  • ||

    Empty their magazines. I'm with Matt here, calling magazines 'clips' bugs the shit out of me.

  • Paul||

    As a long time shooter, I've never understood this pedantry.

    Ok, except when the media erroneously refers to a weapon as "fully automatic".

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Yeah, it seems nit-picky, but as a long-time picker of nits, it has come to bug me too. It's a magazine, not a clip. They aren't the same thing.

    But I've seen far more egregious errors in news accounts of shootings. Like the .22-millimeter handgun. Your average newspaper journo doesn't have the slightest clue what semi-auto means, or the distinction between a caliber expressed as a decimal fraction of an inch versus metric. E.g., they would not have the slightest grasp of the relative sizes of a 9 mm round versus a .380 - I mean, 9 is a lot bigger than .38, right?

  • Paul||

    9 is defnitely bigger than .45
    Shizzle.

  • ||

    Most journalists are uneducated morons. Look at anything they report about, not just guns. They're often so wrong it's laughable, whether in science, computing, guns, etc.

  • Paul||

    Most journalists are uneducated morons. Look at anything they report about, not just guns.

    Guys, Mike Riggs is like, standing right here.

  • ||

    No offense. (said Rodney Dangerfield-style)

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I said "your average newspaper journo" and Epi said "most".

  • ||

    ^this

  • skr||

    ".22 millimeter"
    lol

    I targeted the mosquito and slowly squeezed the trigger. My .22 millimeter round striking a perfect head shot.

  • ||

    There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito...

  • Mensan||

    I've never seen the .22 mm reported, but I did see a news report where the reporter said a gunman had opened fire with a 45 mm handgun.

  • J. P. Carlo||

    A 45 mm would be useful if you were up against a tank division...

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    "410 gauge shotgun"

    Holy cow, that big?!

    ... Hobbit

  • Joe R.||

    Actually, 410 gauge would be pretty small, barely larger than 1/3 the diameter of a 20 gauge barely, and 1/4 the size of 12 gauge. Not exactly--I'm doing cube roots in my head FFS.

  • Joe R.||

    Barely.

  • tote-road||

    My favorite is the shopworn "service revolver" for any handgun used by police.

  • ||

    Getting their wads off.

  • Ska||

    Your father reeks of saltpeter.

  • ||

    Exercising their rights?

  • ||

    Exercising their authoratah.

  • ||

    Which must be respected.

  • Ska||

    Did I time my alternative Monty Python bit poorly?

  • ||

    Don't be upset, Ska. Timing takes practice. As you can see, ProL clearly doesn't practice at all.

  • Ska||

    I just, I.... thought I was better than that. QQ

  • ||

    It's hierarchy of the reference material, Ska. You see, Cartman is more directly relevant here than Monty Python. Therefore the South Park reference takes prominence.

    It's all explained in my handy pamphlet "How to Quote Pop Culture References on the Internet". Only $9.95!

  • ||

    Hold on. I dispute this. In fact, I say that Python trumps South Park.

    Used to be hereabouts, that the top of the hierarchy was Planet of the Apes or Dune. Back when Virginia was editor and we had a better class of commenter.

    Just kidding--drink!

  • ||

    I'm afraid that Python was utterly ruined for me in advance of ever seeing their bits by people endlessly parroting them.

  • ||

    If it was good enough for the King, it's good enough for you.

    Try the movies--good gateway drug. They are worth whatever prejudice you must overcome.

  • ||

    Can I get that as an e-book or on my Kindle app?

  • ||

    "poor people tend to live in clusters and smell like sour milk" - cartman

  • Cyto||

    I'm picturing a bunch of upper class twits milling about shooting in random directions. Seems fairly appropriate. They did manage to hit 4 other people, in addition to the one they were aiming at.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    They were aiming at everybody. They were all resisting.

  • ||

    that is referred to as a "target rich environment"

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    I'm liking you more and more...

  • Matt Felch||

    "Panicked Magazine Dump"

  • Some Call Me. . .Tim||

    "Officer why did you shoot my client 17 times?"

    "Because 17 shots is all I had in the magazine."

  • Xenocles||

    I like this, but I'd also like to propose the following as an alternative punchline:

    "Because I got distracted as I was reloading."

  • Paul||

    I believe the technical term for a bunch of cops blasting away at someone is "panic fire".

    I thought that was what occurred when you hid the still-lit joint under the couch when someone knocks at the door?

  • Bill||

    You can call it anything. But the term "unloading" comes from, "unloading the magazine, or barrel if there is no mag. It's a street term, but that's what it means.

  • ||

    Unload. As in "it was full when I started shooting, and now it is empty". To unload via use of the trigger, rather than other means.

    Appropriated for use in other contexts as well, as in "Wiener's wife unloaded on him when he came home. She was particularly upset that he was philandering knowing that she's pregnant."

    Word of the day... unload.

  • JD||

    Now don't be hasty. Perhaps MDPD issues Mauser C96's or Steyr M1912's to their officers.

  • ||

    The statement added that several other cellphones were seized by police during the investigation.

    Oh, well, that's alright then.

    They've got a funny way of treating witnesses, too:

    Benoit’s girlfriend told the Miami Herald that police then “put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground.” According to Benoit, one officer handcuffed him, grabbed his phone, “smashed” it on the ground, and then put it back in Benoit’s pocket.

    And witness to what, exactly, that required that he be detained, etc. Why would the police detain anyone, take any phones, etc., unless they thought a crime had been committed? It seems to me they have two options at this point

    (1) These people did not witness anything wrong, and so there was no basis for detaining them or their phones.

    (2) These people did witness a crime, namely, the shooting, and so their detention was justified.

    Either way, some cops did bad. By their own account.

  • ||

    They were material witnesses, which is the same as criminals.

  • ||

    Hey, that's right! And they can be detained as such forever. Great scam, that.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    The police had to take them into custody to protect them from retaliation by the alleged shooters.

  • proegg antichicken||

    but the police were the shooters, win-the-future?

  • cynical||

    Some people think you're a troll, but I know you've just mastered levels of sarcasm so sublime that the ordinary human mind cannot perceive them.

  • Bee Tagger||

    After just seeing a large number of police unload a hailstorm of bullets on a man in a parked car, I imagine seeing one of those same cops pointing a gun at you in your parked car would be absolutely terrifying.

    Whatever his process was for saving that memory card from destruction, that's some remarkable cool under pressure.

  • Meiczyslaw||

    He popped it from his camera, and stuck it in his mouth, supposedly.

  • sounds real good||

    I was thinking the same thing. Those two were very brave to assert their rights in that situation.

  • ||

    Yes, a lot of balls. However, there might be another explanation: Perhaps they are just used to cops pointing guns at them.
    It would still make me piss my pants, but that's just cowardly little me...

  • Spur||

    Everything I knew about Miami LEO's has been from watching Dexter - I always thought, 'Spur, never move to Miami because every third person is a serial killer but the police are fine.' Now I know never to move to Miami because every third person is a serial killer and the cops suck. Fucking reality man, total bummer.

  • Au H20||

    Of course they suck. It's been 5 years and they still haven't caught Dexter!

  • ||

    +1000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!

  • cynical||

    Professional courtesy.

  • Thom||

    I've only watched four seasons, but so far the only time that Dexter has specifically asked for professional courtesy he ended up getting arrested.

  • ||

    we in the pac NW have total pwnage on yer weak-ass SE wannabe serial killers.

    sure, you guys have charlize theron, but we have bundy, ridgway et al

  • ||

    That movie was a great warning for me. Sure, she may look like Charlize Thereon when you are dating... but after you get married she's eventually gonna turn in to Aileen Wournos.

  • ||

    two words: prenuptial agreement (with a fugly clause)

  • ||

    I learned from Miami Vice. I thought they all wore leisure suits and drove Ferraris.

  • Fire Tiger||

    The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene, and that he ignored officers’ demands to stop.
    He was stopped because he ignored the officers demans to stop?

  • proegg antichicken||

    I don't even feel like I can express outrage anymore. After reading nutpunches week after week, year after year, it's just depressing. Nothing is ever done about these few bad apples.

    Just a few bad apples, week after week, year after year.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Roger that. I am tired of hearing the "few bad apples" argument also. It seems like every week here in the sleepy seaside town of Long Beach that there is a police officer committing a crime; whether it is an unjustified shooting, property theft, sexual assault, and on, and on, and on... Bad apples? Are there any *good* apples?

  • ||

    most ARE good apples. these guys who pulled this shit with the cellphone (assuming arguendo the claims are true) should be indicted for vandalism, evidence destruction, and whatever else sticks. absolutely 100% illegal.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Destruction of evidence? Obstruction of justice?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful detainment, perhaps kidnapping. Vandalism. And all with the gun enhancement LEOs are so fond of.

  • .||

    Not from what I've seen, they aren't. So you can make that claim, but you ask me to disbelieve my own experience, and I'm not talking about watching bad-cop videos online; I've been hassled (to put it lightly) many too many times, for no good reason, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law, I'm the dictionary definition of a model citizen.

    And aside from that, you want to do me a favor and relay to your fellows that it might be cool if they obeyed the law they claim to uphold? Stupid stuff like signalling turns, not driving out of in-only parking lot entrances, not driving around @ 100 mph with no lights/siren to get nowhere (I chased a guy doing this one time -- I mean literally, chased him -- he lost me in a neighborhood), not blowing through red lights and stop signs, and the like. Just all those stupid laws that we all have to follow. Because it really starts to get under a person's skin.

  • ||

    would you like some crisis counseling
    ? do you still hear the crying of the lambs? i feel your pain.

  • .||

    Figures.

  • ||

    y'know what. even when i was a longhaired surfer rock n roller type, i was NEVER once hassled by police. i was actually treated quite respectfully and they were even very helpful on occasion (like when my beloved plymouth fury broke down and the CHP trooper gave me a ride and was actually totally cool).

    i played in a (quite loud) band in college, and when they responded to noise complaints, they were respectful and even let us finish the song... (20 minute version of louie louie notwithstanding)

    on the other hand, the one time i was a disrespectful punk towards a cop, i got disrespect and even an arguably vague threat in return

    maybe there's a lesson there. cops should treat even assholes respectfully up to a point.

    but treat people as you expect to be treated is how i dealt with cops and i was NEVER dissapointed, even when i was proned out at gunpoint as a robbery suspect.

    currently, there are 3 (iirc it was 3) spd cops who received 15 and 20 days suspension for daring to SWEAR at a MS-13 gang member who had just made a vauge death threat towards them and was not responding to commands to roll down his window, etc.

    is THAT fair?

    it works both ways

  • gozwa||

    Actually that seems to show how screwed up the police are in managing themselves. Seattle/King County will suspend some cops for use of foul language, but going out of their way to gun down woodcarvers, or slam people into walls putting them into a permanent vegetative state, those actions are both "ok" by the Seattle police and King County sheriff

  • ||

    which is of course again a lie

    the woodcarver shooting was almost immediately ruled UNJUSTIFIED by seattle police and he no longer works for SPD. that is the SOLE extent of what they could do. there is nothing more SPD could have done (the prosecutor makes charging decisions and he correctly ruled under the law that he couldn't charge the cop... but again totally tangential to the PD which did everything it could)

    as for the slamming into the wall incident, that was entirely justified. when cops are investigating a violent crime - witnesses point to you as one of the outstanding offenders, the cops yell for you to stop and you turn and run - cops chase you. and after SEVERAL BLOCKS when you stop , the cops are not and should not just stop too and say "sir, woudl you please submit to handcuffing" . considering the long foot pursuit, the violent nature of the crime ALLEGED, the suspect's giving flight from the crime scene etc. - you tackle the guy. it was a tragic incident, and the guy turned out not to be involved but that use of force was JUSTIFIED.

    however, even a justified use of force can have tragic circumstances, as this one did. sad case.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's pretty far from fair. LEO are given a level of authority that can only be used justly if the officer can maintain professional detachment when dealing with the public. Once an officer takes an interaction personally, he is no longer acting as an agent of the state, he is acting for himself. At that point, any violent action initiated by him under color of law is abuse.

  • ||

    please point to what specifically

    SPD did wrong in the woodcarver shooting. they did everything they could. found the shooting unjustified, and the guy resigned before they could even fire them

    KCSO did wrong in the tackling incident.

    again, what SPECIFICALLY was done wrong? because a lie was made (not by you), i responded with case facts, and you respond with general rhetoric, not facts.

    those two instances were references, so tell me - what did KCSO or SPD do wrong?

  • cynical||

    "SPD did wrong in the woodcarver shooting. they did everything they could. found the shooting unjustified, and the guy resigned before they could even fire them"

    Um, when most people shoot someone without justification, loss of employment is the least of their concerns. Just so you know.

  • ||

    again, the issue was what did SPD do wrong (answer: nothing)

    they found the shooting unjustified and the guy quit before he could be fired. the PROSECUTOR's office had the decision to charge or not charge. not the SPD

    SPD did everything they could do.

    again, try to read before responding.

    that's the point. there is literally nothing more SPD could have done

  • ||

    Yeah, you're right. The cops don't hassle people and you have nothing to fear if you're doing nothing wrong. I have to believe your perspective is grotesquely skewed due to your position. Sure, you have nothing to fear from the cops - you are one. It ain't the same for the rest of us. I'm not a criminal. I tend to obey the law. Yet somehow, I feel much more fearful of the police than I do of any criminal doing me harm.

  • ||

    the law and reality aren't interested in your "feelings". many irrational anti-gunners similarly are scared of people who have CCW's and are carrying concealed. much like you, they aren't interested in facts, they are interested in feelings.

    if we allow everyday citizens to carry guns, it's like SOMALIA. that is to be feared

    clearly, you aren't in reality and actual risks to yourself. you are interested in reinforcing your prejudices.

  • Ronnie Schreiber||

    you are interested in reinforcing your prejudices.

    Officer Dunphy, please look up the term "projection" in a dictionary of psychological terms.

    The fact that Dunphy uses a pseudonym out of fear of retribution from fellow LEOs or his superiors is itself evidence of the corruption that he denies is widespread.

    If Dunphy would even once acknowledge the problem of cops seeing themselves as supercitizens, above the law, he'd have some credibility. If he does concede anything, it's that a small number of bad apples are the problem, not cop culture that denigrates non-cops.

    Has Dunphy ever turned in a bad cop? Hard to tell since he won't identify himself. All we have is his word, and since we know for a fact that cops lie, cheat, steal, rape, rob and murder (they just arrested two cops in the Detroit area in separate cases of rape under cover of authority), the testimony of a cop is suspect.

    BTW, the reason why cops go in the out lane, block traffic lanes when making traffic stops, etc. is not to intimidate the people that they're pulling over, it's to send a message to the rest of us that Johnny Law and his buddies can do whatever they want to do.

  • Anonymous Observer||

    I grew up in a family of LEO's, I know quite a few of them.

    I know of extra-judicial killing by officers of a convicted cop-killer. He somehow managed to escape the back of a cruiser while handcuffed and being transported.

    They didn't see anything wrong with it.

    All interactions with police since leaving the homestead have left me deeply and profoudly disturbed.

    Adrenaline jocks, type-A personalities (followed by two S' and a hole.), commanding me to stop recording in a public area, while I'm on my property, walking onto my property with no regard for permission, acting pissy and challenging me when I asked them to repeat themselves near a loud roadway.

    There is a very present strong-arming and "Us Vs. Them" mentality within the police force.

    Further. If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you fear being recorded?

    Lastly, you're about to hit a boiling point. The danger that you may enter an armed "suspects" home who is predisposed to just shoot as they fear they'll be assassinated is increasing exponentially.

    Do you not like going home to your family? Because all these actions are doing are reinforcing that you fools need to be culled from the herd, with extreme prejudice.

    I don't advocate violence, I'm predicting.

    Keep firing on the citizens and bullying. We may decide to bully back. There's more of us and we're getting really pissed off.

  • ||

    ""most ARE good apples""

    Depends on how you look at it.

    If I see bad things happening and I let them happen, and/or don't report it, am I still a good apple? No. I'm not one of those bad apples, but not a good apple either.

    If a cop see another cop usurps someone's rights, or violates the law and does nothing about it and/or doesn't report it. They are not a good apple. Even more so than a non-cops, because we are not sworn to uphold the law.

    I agree with something Frank Serpico said, the problem will persist as long as the good cop fears the bad cop and not the other way around.

  • ||

    and i gave numerous examples where good cops turned in bad cops for misconduct.

    and i readily agree. serpico is one of my heroes and he did the right thing, and was fucked over (and shot) in retaliation

    he is a hero. so are thousands of cops nationwide who do the right thing.

    and of course don't make the pages of reason

    the cop in THIS case who grabbed the cell phone and smashed it is a criminal *( assuming arguendo he did what was alleged).

    he should be charged

  • Trespassers W||

    was fucked over (and shot) in retaliation

    Jeez, dude, give me a spoiler alert. I still haven't seen it. Just the stage version in Rushmore.

  • ||

    that's my favorite version.

  • Ronnie Schreiber||

    he should be charged

    Have you ever testified against another LEO?

  • ||

    never been asked to. if asked to, i'd do the same thing YOU should do when asked to testify in court - tell the truth

  • ||

    You can't be a "good apple" and be willing to arrest and jail people for consensual crimes.

  • ||

    Sorry, any cop who lets a brother cop get away with breaking any law is a bad apple. So if you giver "professional courtesy" or know of other cops who do then you are a bad apple. If you ever enforce a law that infringes upon peaceful citizens, then you are a bad apple.

  • ||

    so, also any MD who follows the law regarding having report diversions,script fraud etc. is also a "bad apple" since that infringes upon peaceful citizens.

    clearly, no citizen can become an MD and have a conscience since they are participating in the WOD!

  • Matt||

    Sure they can... they just have to have a conscience and not follow the laws that are wrong.

    It's not only a right, but a DUTY... not that a cop would have any idea what DUTY is.

  • cynical||

    Or, you know, aggravated assault or armed robbery. Since he took property unlawfully (ie, to obstruct justice) using a firearm to threaten people.

  • ||

    sounds reasonable to me.

  • Matt||

    And if I did the same thing to you?

  • ||

    ""Nothing is ever done about these few bad apples.'"

    Promoted and/or honored isn't exactly nothing.

  • ||

    or fired and criminally charged.

  • ||

    Or named Officer of the Year in his union. This hero killed a college kid for not moving his car to the right place when a bunch of cops yelled at him.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011.....ins-award/

  • ||

    right. that's EXACTLY what happened (rolls eyes)...

    Police said that when they knocked on the window of Henry's vehicle, which was parked in a fire lane, the student accelerated, striking Hess and another officer. Hess landed on the hood of Henry’s vehicle, and he and another officer, Ronald Beckley, fired at the car.

    Hess underwent a four and a half hour surgery to repair his knee.

    The PBA said that Hess was honored for the "dignified and professional manner [he's] conducted himself throughout his career and this ordeal."

    Last month, a judge threw out criminal charged against Henry’s teammates caught in the chaos of the shooting. Hess and Beckley were cleared of criminality by a grand jury in February.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011.....z1Ok4CCb9T

  • Boss Tweed||

    It's the 99.99% bad cops who make the other 0.01% good cops look bad.

  • Paul||

    The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene

    Are they serious? Twenty cops were surrounding a car filling it full of lead. Everyone should have been fleeing the scene!

  • ||

    If only they had managed to pull off a circular firing squad.

    I honestly don't know why there aren't more stories about cops accidentally shooting other cops; probably because they don't report them to the media.

  • Paul||

    The first one I remember is a guy in a truck who was suicidal who lifted his gun. Happened back in the late 80s or 90s, but the cops were surrounding the vehicle in a circle and, well, you know what happened next.

    I believe there's a relevant scene from Ronin where an old, wise Robert Dinero schools the young, brash Sean Bean on such shenanigans.

  • ||

    Great car chase scenes in that too. It was a little glimpse of the old Frankenheimer.

  • ||

    Sean Bean is a net good. He should be in more stuff. More good stuff.

  • ||

    Well, he'll be freed up after this first season of Game of Thrones. Hopefully his next project will be as good.

    Oh, if you haven't read the books you probably shouldn't read what I just wrote.

  • ||

    Did you ever watch any of the Sharp series? I liked him in that. Most of it, anyway.

  • Paul||

    Sharpe's Company was my first introduction to the Bean.

  • ||

    Love the books--kind of a Horatio Hornblower on land, except with more sex and less morality.

    I don't know if it's common knowledge, but the original Star Trek has quite a few roots in the Hornblower stories. Kirk was modeled after Hornblower. And yes, the name is funny.

    Anyway, really enjoyed the Sharp series, with a couple of exceptions, but the casting was superb, and Sean Bean was just great.

  • ||

    One issue I've had with Bean in Hollywood is that they generally cast him as a villain (thanks to Goldeneye, I suppose). But he's good in hero roles, as well.

  • ||

    I saw all of the Sharp series. I liked it.

  • ||

    Have you seen the Hornblower series (really just a set of movies)? Very good production and not ridiculously deviant from the novels, though plenty of liberties were taken.

  • ||

    Yeah, anything with David Warner in it tends to be good.

    As for Sharpe, I rather enjoy it, but the fucking electric guitar that is sometimes used in the score grates. My period fictional pieces should be scored by period instruments, damn it.

  • Paul||

    As for Sharpe, I rather enjoy it, but the fucking electric guitar that is sometimes used in the score grates. My period fictional pieces should be scored by period instruments, damn it.

    I remember some period movies made in the 80s with fucking MIDI synth keyboards. Chariots of Fire anyone?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Have you seen the Hornblower series

    We own the whole boxed set. My wife actually enjoys them as much as I do - but mostly because she thinks Ioan Gruffud is cute, and she likes him as Horatio, because he is so honorable and always does the right thing.

    Sorta like me.

  • Paul||

    They made another set of Sharpe? How did I miss this?

  • ||

    I only heard about it a year or so ago. It's (very) loosely based on the books that predate his officer years. One major difference is that the television version is set after the Napoleonic Wars.

  • kinnath||

    the spoiler alert goes in front of the spoiler. got it. IN FRONT OF DA FOOKIN' SPOILER

  • ||

    Well, he'll be freed up after this first season of Game of Thrones.

    MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!

    I hate you!!!!

  • ||

    *shakes fist at Epi*

  • Shmenge||

    Sean Bean was in Black Death as well, just came out on DVD a week or two ago. Definitely wortg checking out.

  • ||

    I thought it odd that the atheist was so completely an unsympathetic character.

    Of course no one was really sympathy worthy in that movie so there is that.

  • ||

    I thought the cops in "Gauntlet" would have blasted each other.

  • ||

    Do you remember the two cops that shot each other in Jersey many years ago? They were both shooting at a pitbull, missed the dog and hit each other. Neither injury was life threatening. I laughed my ass off for days.

  • Paul||

    shooting at a pitbull, missed the dog and hit each other. Neither injury was life threatening. I laughed my ass off for days.

    Even the dog was howling.

  • 0x90||

    I think they very nearly did in this case.

    At the very beginning of the video, you will notice a tan-shirted officer advancing on the rear driver corner of the vehicle and taking aim; it appears to me that he may have slipped and inadvertently fired the first shot, triggering the rest of the incident.

    I obviously can't say that he did, but take a look and see if you don't agree that's what it looks like. You will see him moving up, bringing his weapon up toward the driver; at this point the first shot occurs, but this officer does not flinch until the general shooting commences, at which point he rapidly retracts his weapon and scrambles to get out of the many lines of fire in which he's suddenly, and apparently completely unexpectedly, found himself.

  • ||

    Can't WTFV at work; I'll have to remember to check later.

  • Paul||

    Make friends with your network admin.

  • ||

    No, I have to work and I have no audio. Fuck, I am a network admin.

    Plus it will piss me off and ruin my concentration.

  • Paul||

    I thought you were a software engy? If you're doin' double-duty you gotta straighten that shiznit out.

  • ||

    I work for a startup, dude. The software engineers are the network admins. And the hardware guys. And the reporting goons. And the...well, anything even remotely technical.

  • Paul||

    Good luck with that. I was a software engy with a company for 17 years that was in perpetual startup mode.

    If it ran on electricity...

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I satrted a startup. You need a job? You do Linux?

  • Paul||

    Me or Epi?

    Unfortunately, I don't do Linux.

    But yeah, I'd love a job. But I'm kind of out of the SW engy racket.

  • 0x90||

    I Sartre'd a sartre-up. I found the autonomy it gave me to be utterly confining.

  • In Time of War||

    C'mon now, someone here desperately needs a moderately skilled C# programmer, right?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Or why there aren't more stories about cops shooting themselves and then fabricating stories that shut down the western end of the San Fernando Valley? Oh, wait! Here's one: http://articles.latimes.com/20.....g-20110128

  • Fire Tiger||

    Also from the linked article
    After several days, police found a handgun in his car.
    They had to wait for the invisible ink to evaporate.

  • Some Call Me. . .Tim||

    The police were out biking and walking when suddenly they were assaulted by dozens of camera carrying goons.

  • Pip||

    "he matched the description of a man"

    The favorite pig trump card.

    Oh, and eat pig shit Dunphy.

  • ||

    win! Anyone who is/wants/will join an outfit that daily kills citizens can go suck penguin shit and are a bunch of ass-spelunkers!

  • ||

    ass-spelunkers! that's awesome. shut your fucking face, uncle fucker!

  • ||

    talk more shit to yourself pig
    you people (pigs) suck.

  • ||

    Yes.
    I will always hate you Dummphy just BECAUSE you are/is/were a pig. fuck you.

  • ||

    smooches to you too!

  • ||

    Must be a bitch when not in uniform and oppressing your own self created captive audience...
    blah blah blah bad apples blah blah blah not all bad blah blah blah...

    Here is the 'gist' of my convo:
    blah blah blah fuck dummphy the pig blah blah blah...

  • ||

    love you too, pip! (smooches)

  • TRTB||

    The dunphy rage seems misplaced. I doubt we'd be buddies in real life, but he's more libertarian, and more willing to hold cops accountable, than 99% of the general populace. That's way, way better than I ever personally expected to encounter in a member of his profession. Obviously, I do resent that he complicates the overall narrative, even if marginally.

  • ||

    it's just the reflexive IQ 75 pip-rage. i don't take it personally. but thanks, man.

    i tend to make arguments based on case law/rule of law. iow, not a normative argument, which is what most people make in such cop shooting cases, etc.

    regardless, i guarantee i loathe police misconduct more than most people here 0- for obvious reasons

    i am just not bigoted and thus do not assume it sans evidence or discount the (usually completely ignored at REASON.com) other aspects of the story, since the reporting is entirely selective here.

    in THIS case, regardless of whether the shoot was justified (have no idea), there is NO way shape or form, grabbing and smashing the cell phone is. in fact, it's a pretty blatant criminal offense and should be prosecuted

  • ||

    You continue to assert that states have the right to prohibit the use and sale of drugs. Several times I have tried to educate you on the topic but all you do is respond by saying "that's false".

    For example, I asked you if the original constitution of the state of Washington contained an express grant of power giving the legislature the ability to proscribe narcotics. Of course, you did not respond to the question. In my view, the reason you did not want to respond to the question is because, OF COURSE, there is no such grant of power given to the legislature.

    If the founding fathers had intended to give ANY governmental entity the totalitarian power to proscribe drugs, they would have so said. THEY DID NOT.

    Moreover, had the founding fathers intended the judiciary to uphold the constitutionality of drug prohibition legislation, they would have so said. THEY DID NOT SO SAY.

    Furthermore, you did not respond to my question about the ninth amendment. You will note that there are no exceptions in the text of the amendment. You do know that the 9th amendment is rooted in natural rights philosophy-the philosophy that undergirded the founding era.

    All of the above is fact.

  • ||

    DUMPHY, all pigs suck.
    You are just the dumb mother fucker that has been tricked into playing the "some bad apples" shtick.
    Not only do you suck, you are a dumb fuck.

  • ||

    the founding fathers wrote a constitution that limits (generally speaking ) the power of the federal govt. and through the incorporation doctrine, the states as well.

    you are arguing your opinion and stating it as fact. i have yet to read one valid, constitutionally based argument that can explain why states are LEGALLY prohibited from proscribing any fucking drug they want.

    states have the authority to proscribe LOTS of stupid shit as long as they don't interfere with any constitutional right

    there is no constitutional right to use drugs. would be nice if there was, but there isn't

    where do you see this right? post it here:

  • ||

    Oh god you are stoooooopid...
    There is no constitutional right to pick my nose ASSHOLE!

  • jerk||

    so stop picking your nose, or your asshole. Nope, fuck it, pick whatever you want.

  • ||

    The 9th amendment.

  • ||

    Now I have to respond to Dunphy:
    Typical cop! Just because it doesn't say that "drugs are ok" doesn't make it illegal.
    You don't understand how the whole "rights" think works.
    Ever hear of "negative rights?"

  • Matt||

    There's no constitutional "right" to do anything. There are simply rights that are recognized within the constitution that are not to be abridged by the state (federal or otherwise)... among them, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    The right to do drugs I think is somewhere in the "liberty" and/or "happiness" parts... and maybe the "life" part if you consider that if you get involved in drugs you might have your life ended by some dick-nosed cop.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Does the Constitution of the State of Washington expressly grant the legislature the power to make murder illegal?

    Does it expressly grant the legislature the power to require deeds tranferring an interest in real property to be recorded in county records (or whatever system you've got out there)?

    A state constitution cannot provide a canonical list of every single, separate individual matter upon which the legislature may legislate.

    The power to prohibit the use and sale of certain substances that the legislature perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be harmful is a clear and valid exercise of the police power, which the states retained, but which in recent years Congress has been arrogating for itself.

  • ||

    The police power is nowhere mentioned in the federal constitution. Nor is there any provision which gives the goverment an EXCLUSIVE or MONOPOLOSTIC right to administer justice.

    Remember, the state has no organic right to exist or to impose what it sees fit under the statist concoction called the "police power". The "police power" was not the rallying cry of 1776. Nor was it cited as an end for which the founders were employing terror and killing those who exercised the "police power" in behalf of the king. In fact, they warned us of those who would conceive of rights as being granted by kings and not being natural and inherent and antecedent to the state.

    The state's existence is derived from the people for the purpose of protecting individual liberty, private property and to prevent any form of democracy, socialism, protectionism, communism, fascism, drug wars, standing militaries, empire builiding, conscription and the like.

    No, the power to proscribe the use and sale of narcotics is not a valid exercies of the police power. The 9th amendment prohibits a state from enacting legislation which purports to dictate what substance one can take.

    You forget that the founding generation was dominated by the natural rights philosohpy. One of the pillars of the natural rights philosophy is that there is no canonical list of rights that we have; our rights are just too numerous to catalogue while the framers insisted that any powers granted to the state must be limited and not susceptible to pliability because they knew tyhat all sorts of scumbags would come along justifying the espansion of such powers and that our rights inhere to us as human beings.

    IOW, we do not need no stinkin okay from the state as to whether we can use intoxicants and narcotics. The only activities which are proscribed are those which directly impede upon the rights of others. If you smoke dope, there is no logical basis to argue that such an activity impedes, in any way, my rightful enjoyment of my privileges and immunities.

    One's rights inhere with one's existence. They are not creatures of government. Thus, one's natural rights are antecedent to the state. One does not give up his rights to the state just because statists have invented a doctrine out of whole cloth.

  • oncogenesis||

    +1776

  • Ray Pew||

    i tend to make arguments based on case law/rule of law. iow, not a normative argument, which is what most people make in such cop shooting cases, etc.

    And the normative argument is the only one that attempts to delve past what is to what should be. Stating "this is the way things are" is an argument that routinely supports the continuation of injustice

  • ||

    if you can't distinguish between what the law IS and what (you think) it should be, that's yer problem.

    you, and anybody else, to include cops, are required to obey the law or face consequences.

    nobody is required to obey the law that you wish existed

  • Matt||

    Everybody is required to obey the law that they believe should exist.

  • ||

    Can't believe it took this long for someone to link to the obvious Idiocracy reference.

  • Paul||

    Fucksticks! I was gonna I swear, but then I ended up looking for the scene where the cops kept saying "this particular individual" and then I got bored and moved on.

  • Middle Age Crazy||

    Behold, the power of a thousand eyeballs:

    Extra Big Ass Fries

    "Carls Jr.- Fuck You, I'm eating"

  • ||

    I love how a mis-fire brings down a jet-liner. We have surpassed Orwell's 1984, Idiocracy is now the future...

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene

    BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.

    This is what courts call "post hoc rationalization".

  • JD||

    They could have just gone with the tried-and-true "officer safety" justification, but their job gets boring if they tell the same lies all the time. Gotta mix it up once in a while.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The statement also ... said Benoit didn’t turn over a copy of the video until he was served with a subpoena.

    And why the fuck should he turn his damn video over without a subpoena? If I'm out on a public street and I see something happening, and I video it, why the hell would I give that video to the police - even if they asked me for it? My response would be "show me a warrant or subpoena". It happened in full public view; I can take photos or video. It's my video; I see no reason why I should feel obligated to turn it over to anyone else.

    They act like he's some kind of criminal for not turning it over until they got the court to require him to do so.

    Dammit, this pisses me off something furious.

  • cynical||

    Well, if they agreed to take a copy, and it was feasible for him to make one (I dunno, send it in a text message to a detective), that's one thing. But I'm not going fault someone for being uncooperative when you point a gun in their face shortly after Buttling someone.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    So a dozen cops unloaded their mags into this guy's car. Let's assume they were using something like 13-round mags. So you're talking about something like 150 rounds.

    How many times do you want to guess they actually hit the guy?

  • Paul||

    How many times do you want to guess they actually hit the guy?

    Enough to kill him?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    True, that.

  • ||

    We had a bunch of state troopers empty their mags at a bank robber in a car WITH a hostage. The BR and the hostage both suffered shrapnel wounds. The BR ended up shooting himself in the head.

  • ||

    d00d. state troopers? AAA with a gun?

  • Robert||

    OMG, theseguys have no idea what they're doing, I'm going to have to pop myself!

  • ||

    1. That wasn't a traffic stop, that was an execution. The craven and criminal level that cops have devolved to is beyond unsettling.

    2. There are no good cops. None. Stop pretending that there are. If there were, we'd here about their prosecutions/firings for ratting out their scummy brethren.

    3. The war on cameras is going to get a whole fuck lot uglier before it's over. The cops will ultimately lose, but they're going to take as many of us with them as they can, before the do lose.

  • ||

    All correct points. At best there are "look the other way" cops. And that's just not good enough.

  • ||

    that's utter rubbish. look at the paul schene case for example (a cop i opined was guilty as fuck from the start and who was ultimately criminally charged). a detective reviewing the case found evidence of him committing an assault during her investigation and did the right thing, as cops usually do - notified her supervisors and started the investigation that led to his firing and criminal prosecution

    the bigotry here clouds your reality

  • Coeus||

    You mean the Paul Schene whose final court case was “Dismissed without prejudice”? That Paul Schene? You sure you wanna go with that example?

  • ||

    he got a mistrial because the JURY couldn't convict

    what more do you want done?

    he assaults the girl (imo)

    detective finds this out, notifies supervisor.

    dept. takes action and suspends him

    prosecutor's office charges him with assault

    juries hangs

    TWICE.

    seriously. answer my question? where is the misconduct on the part of anybody but schene. he was investigated, fired and charged

    the JURY HUNG TWICE

    is your claim that the prosecutor should keep retrying him for a third, fourth time? is that an efficient use of tax dollars? fair, etc? do (non cops) get tried 3 times when the first two juries hang

    seriously. answer the question, Coeus. What DID the cops (apart from schene) do wrong in that case.

    They did EXACTLY what people here say never happens. they discovered a crime by one of their own, investigated it and prosecuted it.

    and it's still not enough.

    should they have threatened the jury and made them convict? what exactly should they have done?

  • Coeus||

    What DID the cops (apart from schene) do wrong in that case.

    That depends on your point of view. If you hold that only a person's immediate actions count, then nothing. If you believe, as I do, that you are morally responsible for where you send your money (for example, if I contributed to Obama's campaign fund, I am partially to blame for his disastrous policies), then everyone in the department is partially to blame for providing for his defense.

    And don't give me any "entitled to due process" shit. Due process means a public defender, not an expensive as shit Johnny-fucking-Cochrane lawyer.

    It's the same as when it's said "don't blame the cops for the laws, they're just enforcing them" conviently ignoring the fact that a large portion of cop's union dues are going to lobby for those exact laws people find so frustrating.
    Money=Speech

    But back to my original point, are you sure you want to use a case that, while technically following your points, had an outcome which resulted in a guilty-as-shit officer completely escaping justice?

  • ||

    i really can't believe you are serious. now, the fault is he wasn't given a cheap public defense attorney. so, in your faux libertarian world people can't hire the lawyer they can afford?

    really?

    again, why can't you just admit the obvious?

    the dept and the prosecutor's office did everything right in the schene case. but yes, even evil dirty nasty cops who assault people do have a right to a trial.

    he had TWO and in both cases the juries hung

    like it or not, he got process-justice whether or not you like the result.

    but i seriously can't believe you are now griping because he didn't get a public defender.

    and note - no public tax funds were used to pay for his defense. NONE

  • Coeus||

    so, in your faux libertarian world people can't hire the lawyer they can afford?

    He didn't hire him (and almost certainly couldn't afford him) the union did it for him.

    but i seriously can't believe you are now griping because he didn't get a public defender.

    No, I said that because I knew that if I didn't, the first thing you'd say was "DUE PROCESS". I want him to pay for his own damn lawyer.

    and note - no public tax funds were used to pay for his defense. NONE

    Correct. The other officers paid it for him.

  • ||

    again, this is really just getting absurd on your part. where exactly is the problem, in the schene trial? personally, i disagree with the jury, but good for schene for getting good representation.

    admit it. the cops and the dept and the prosecutor did the right thing

    including the cop who turned him in in the first place

    sorry, you didn't get the optimal result, but legal analysis is not "results based" it is process based.

    at least if you believe in rule of law.

  • Coeus||

    Why are you being intentionally obtuse? I stated, restated and provided reasons. If you don't agree with my reasons, argue them, and quit pretending that I didn't state them. Maybe in caps?

    YOU ARE -AT LEAST- PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF A UNION YOU GIVE MONEY TO.

    If George Soros had paid for OJ's legal defense, don't you think that he would be a least partially responsible for helping a murderer go free?

    at least if you believe in rule of law.

    Given the current laws on the books (and unequal enforcement of said laws), why would any rational person believe in it?

  • ||

    i have no idea if schene's union paid for his attorney or not. for all i know they were contractually obligated to. nor do i care . that's a business agreement between the union and its members. as a libertarian, it's none of your fucking business what that agreement is. he has the right to a trial. the prosecution tried twice and couldn't get a conviction. i don't care if he had alan fucking dershowitz. that's our system and he has the same right to a trial that any other assault suspect has.

    a rich assault suspect is going to get a better lawyer than a poor one (unless he's extra sympathetic and PC and some badass attorney takes the case pro bono)

    that's the system

  • Coeus||

    as a libertarian, it's none of your fucking business what that agreement is.

    This again. As a libertarian, I am perfectly within my ideology to voice my opinion on absolutely anything, as long as I don't call for laws to resolve the situation to my liking. This includes contracts.

    i don't care if he had alan fucking dershowitz.

    I would if I'd partially paid for it.

  • Brian D||

    "YOU ARE -AT LEAST- PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF A UNION YOU GIVE MONEY TO."

    Even if the only way you can't give money to the union is to quit your job?

  • ||

    and thus, by brian;'s logic, we are all partially responsible for everything the obama administration does - since we (ostensibly) pay taxes to it

  • Coeus||

    and thus, by brian;'s logic, we are all partially responsible for everything the obama administration does - since we (ostensibly) pay taxes to it


    No, I have to pay taxes. If I don't, then someone like you comes by with a gun and makes me.

  • Matt||

    Yes and no... Taxes are only voluntary in the sense that you can choose not to pay them, but ultimately you will die for doing so. So yes, I am somewhat responsible for what the federal government does since I haven't decided to risk my life and the lives of my family members to resist. I'll accept that attribution.

    No one is forcing anyone to be a cop, nor are they forcing anyone to enforce unconstitutional and/or immoral laws. You can simply quit... and no one will try to fine (scratch) incarcerate (scratch) kill you for that.

    Indeed, you and I are both partially responsible for the drug war in this country which is, frankly, a civil war perpetrated by the federal government against the citizens it claims to represent. I'm responsible because I am extorted to pay for it and I haven't tried to resist being extorted yet. You are responsible because you're a foot-soldier in the war.

    My conscience is mostly clean. The only reason I haven't resisted yet is because I can't figure out how to do it without getting thrown in jail and thereby destroy my family.

    I hope you at least stop to think about your role, and your relative culpability.

  • Coeus||

    Even if the only way you can't give money to the union is to quit your job?

    Yes

  • Matt||

    Yes.

  • Anonymous Observer||

    Given the current laws on the books (and unequal enforcement of said laws), why would any rational person believe in it?

    THIS.

  • ||

    if you don't believe in it, then work to change it. i don't agree with the WOD or many of the laws on the book.

    we still have rule of law and the social contract (tm)

  • Matt||

    "social contract"... I love it when the discussion devolves that far =)

  • ||

    i have no idea whatsoever if the shooting was justified.

    i am 100% convinced that, assuming what the videographer (for lack of a better term) says is even partially true - these cops should be criminally charged with vandalism, destruction of evidence, etc.

    also, generally speaking, trying to destroy evidence is suggestive of "cognizance of guilt". iow, if you think the shooting was a-ok, you wouldn't try to DESTROY video evidence. you'd try to save it and encourage it.

    a cop i know who was criminally charged with assault (but didn't do it) actually went out and got surveillance video from a neighboring store to the incident, and advised the PD it was there. why did he do this?

    because he KNEW it wouldn't hurt him because he was innocent.

    innocent people, or at least those that think they are innocent (realizing that whether a shooting is justified is often somewhat subjective) don't try to destroy evidence.

  • ||

    i have no idea whatsoever if the shooting was justified.

    Was there any reason to believe that the Herisse was posing an imminent threat of death or bodily harm?

    I don't see any reason to believe so. Remove the uniforms, apply the standards that apply citizens not in the employ of a law enforcement agency, and see what results you get.

  • ||

    again, it's tangential to the point i was making and i haven't seen enough case facts to know whther it was justified or not

    it's irrelevant to the issue of the vandalism/destruction of evidence and maybe assault (assuming the cop didn't have a valid reason to point a gun at the videographer)

    while proximal in time, they are unrelated, in that REGARDLESS of the justification of the shoot (which i am agnostic on), it is CLEAR that if the cop did what the man claimed, he is almost 100% certainly a fucking piece of shit criminal who deserves jail time.

  • ||

    'day sum bad applees guys, cmon!'
    sum us good guys

  • ||

    fuck you pig

  • ||

    smooches!

  • Joke||

    blogimi Dei|6.8.11 @ 6:35PM|#
    fuck you pig

    You're, like, the Shakespeare of H&R!

  • ||

    you are the bitch of H&R.

  • ||

    i have no idea whatsoever if the shooting was justified.

    I also have no idea if *a* shooting was justified, but this wasn't a shooting.

    I counted at least 3 cops emptying their magazines into the car. Now, is that a shooting or a firing squad?

    And you had other cops, who weren't shooting (that I could see), involved in the subsequent cover-up, by trying to destroy any visual evidence of the shooting: confiscating phones and threatening witnesses. When can we sic the RICO statute on them for their conspiratorial actions?

  • ||

    these cops should be criminally charged with vandalism, destruction of evidence, etc.

    How about murder? Manslaughter? will that work for you?

    We only have the word of the cops that killed the guy that he brandished a weapon. Call me skeptical.

    Has there *ever* been a case like this where the words were uttered, "The video evidence confirms the officers' testimony of the events."

  • TRTB||

    these cops should be criminally charged with vandalism, destruction of evidence, etc.

    And assault, as far as I'm concerned.

    Out of curiosity, what do you think the odds of that actually happening are?

  • ||

    i don't know. i know that i can give tons of examples of cops being criminally charged and vigorously investigated by other cops. i have already done so. imo, this is a clear cut crime, assuming the allegations are true

  • Matt||

    No shooting is justified unless it can be proven to be justified. Attempted murder is a crime, unless it can be shown to be self-defense.

    If you have no idea whether the shooting was justified, then by definition the shooting was not "justified."

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Look, if you're videoing a cop and he comes over and starts yelling at you to stop, just throw a dog out there to distract him. While he's busy shooting the dog, you can make your escape.

    Just keep a couple small dogs in the car just in case. You know, like a throw-down piece.

  • ||

    Dachsunds or chihuahuas, not only are they harder to hit, they're yappy, despicable little rats, not real dogs.

  • mikec||

    I like wiener dogs.
    (no homo)

  • Corey||

    This is Miami Beach PD, not Miami PD, right? They are two separate departments, as far as I know.

  • ||

    correct (that they are different. have no idea which agency this is)

  • Corey||

    The blog post says Miami PD - I think that's an error.

  • ||

    based on the continuous shoddy reporting i have been seeing here (see the other post here that claimed a woman was convicted of "possessing pot" when in fact she was convicted of manufacture (iow growing) 19 plants), it's probably best to assume the blog post is wrong until proven otherwise.

    iow, if they said Miami PD , it's probably more likely than not it was Miami Beach PD :)

  • ||

    The article said she had 19 plants. I fail to see the shoddiness.

  • ||

    Mine is more verbose. Nyah.

  • ||

    mine is actually accurate and not a lie

  • ||

    They mentioned the 19 plants found in her house in the post. It's not like they were concealing that information.

  • ||

    the shoddiness is in the factually incorrect title that claims a jury convicted a 70 yr old woman of pot "possession" when the rational and honest thing would be to say they convicted her of "manufacture" or "growing" etc. which is both ACCURATE in the laymans' sense and matches the reality of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CONVICTED HER OF.

    advocacy journalism is not an excuse for lying or being disingenuous

  • ||

    If they were intending to lie, it was pretty foolish of them to put the fact that she had a grow-op at home in the post, no?

  • Wind Rider||

    Knee jerk apologia for the drug war by quibbling differences with difference is pretty fucking lame, dunphy. . .

  • ||

    dummphy is just fucking lame...

    he is a pig...

  • ||

    who the fuck is apologizing for the drug war. i am against the drug war. i am also against advocacy journalist being dishonest in support of a cause, whether or not i agree with the cause.

    the title is inaccurate at best

  • ||

    Careful dunphy, your MPTC is rising.

  • ||

    ^ this! sw333tz!

  • Joke||

    the factually incorrect title

    Attempts at humor (or instigation) trump ethics in the blogosphere. The editors here play to their audience, which they assume to be a locker room full of adolescent boys.

  • ||

    i think you hit it spot on

  • ||

    Get your hands out of your pants and quit talking to yourself swine...

  • Matt||

    Translation:

    the shoddiness is in the factually incorrect title that claims a jury convicted a 70 yr old woman of pot "possession" when the rational and honest thing would be to say they convicted her of "possession of a live MJ plant". which is both ACCURATE in the laymans' sense and matches the reality of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CONVICTED HER OF.

    Pardon me if I don't see a difference.

  • Paul||

    I see two distinct sets of officers. One wearing the long pants, standard uniform, the other set wearing white izods with popped collars and cargo shorts. Those the beach po-po?

  • ||

    white is a really stupid color for police uniforms.

    i mean, you get it splattered with dog blood and it's totally ruined!

  • ||

    Neon pink would be a good color for cop uniforms. Something to calm them.

  • Paul||

    Shouldn't we be wearing the Neon pink?

  • cynical||

    Also, people aren't ever sure whether you're a real cop or a mall cop. Given that the choice between cringing submission and mocking derision can be a matter of life or death, this is a terrible idea.

  • ||

    florida has several agencies with white uniforms. maybe it's some kind of klan shoutout. ask zach de la rocha

  • cynical||

    Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.

  • ||

    or the radio version

    blurtorogfvppht i won;t do what you tell me!

  • ||

    yeah dummphy, he mean you!

  • ||

    It's division of labor. The dark clothes guys are responsible for executions - the white shirt ones are in charge of the cover-ups.

  • ||

    govt. is just not that efficient. so i call bullshit

  • ||

    It was a joke. As soon as their random shots trailed off, they all went directly into cover-up mode.

    You can see it at 1:07 - Like somebody flipped a switch.

  • ||

    omg, it was a JOKE?!?!? thanks for letting me know. i thought you were super serial!

  • Matt||

    Too late, dude.

  • ||

    Oh! In that case.....

  • one two many||

    KEEP YOUR CAMERAS ROLLING ON THESE EVIL ANIMALS. The police's mindless Murder. DISGUSTING. 100 shots at a parked car. DISGUSTING. firing guns at a moving vehicle hitting local people. DISGUSTING. Planting a gun after 3 days. DISGUSTING. pointing guns at witnesses. DISGUSTING. Smashing witness evidence. DISGUSTING. GOOGLE Raymond Herisse. Came from suburban neighborhood. 2 Minor drug arrest. IF THESE CRIMINAL COPS ARE NOT GIVEN LIFE IN PRISON. THIS COUNTRY WE LIVE IN WILL BE ONE MORE MURDER CLOSER TO A DISGUSTING SH*T HOLE.

  • Paul||

    I can't help but feel that you're disgusted.

  • ||

    based on the well known indicator MPTC

    Marginal Propensity To Capitalize

  • ||

    PIG, fuck off.

  • ||

    smooches! :)

  • ||

    Yeah Bitch you wouldn't be saying 'smooches' if you could be using your little clown costume to make people give you undue respect.
    Respect this: perpetrator then grabs his genitals.

  • Almanian||

    Herc? Herc, is that you?

    Herc?

  • Professional Critic||

    No [brackets] therefore it cannot [be] Herc.

  • ¢||

    There are no good cops. None. Stop pretending that there are. If there were, we'd here about their prosecutions/firings for ratting out their scummy brethren.

    We do hear about good cops, posthumously. They're the ones who get friendly-fired in SWAT raids or shot while undercover or off duty by the regular cops.

  • ||

    cops rat out their fellow officers all the time, and that often results in firing and criminal prosecution

    heck, in my area i can think of several examples. and that's just LOCALLY

    paul schene being an obvious example. it was a detective reviewing the case that found evidence he assaulted the suspect (auto theft iirc) and started the whole ball rolling, that eventually resulted in his firing and prosecution

    NUMEROUS other examples i can think of just in the seattle area.

  • ||

    Here's another example I can think of:

    http://schoolcraftjustice.com/

    Like many police officers, PO Schoolcraft joined the NYPD to help people and serve communities plagued by real crime; instead he was faced with enormous pressure to harass law abiding people in order to fudge statistics. Morally opposed to these policies, PO Schoolcraft refused to follow these unlawful orders and was met with retaliation from the highest levels of the NYPD. This ultimately culminated in an attempt to forcibly silence and discredit him; on October 31, 2009, several high ranking NYPD officials illegally entered PO Schoolcraft’s home, forcibly removed him in handcuffs, seized his personal effects, including evidence he had gathered documenting NYPD corruption, and had him admitted to Jamaica Hospital Center against his will, under the false pretense that he was “emotionally disturbed.”
  • ||

    right, see. i can provide examples and you can provide counterexamples which proves my point. there are good cops and bad cops. there are cops who turn in bad cops and those cops are prosecuted . and there are ALSO bad cops who retaliate sometimes, etc.

    that's a nuanced and factual view vs. the lies that

    "There are no good cops. None. Stop pretending that there are. If there were, we'd here about their prosecutions/firings for ratting out their scummy brethren."

    or the lies that cops are never criminally charged, that fellow cops never testify against them, etc. which simply absurd as a metric assload of LOCAL examples alone show

  • ||

    Two cops out of what? 100,000+ cops? That's a rounding error.

    The day that the good cops become the norm and the bad cops are sent up the river they so justly deserve, the day that we're not presented a cop story that falls into the "you've got to be fucking kidding me" category, the day I can stop presuming guilt and that every word out of a cop's mouth, including "and" and "the," is a god damned lie, is the day I'll apologize for making such a statement and admit my error.

  • ||

    there are 100,000 cops in my neck of the pac NW?

    damn, that's like one cop for every 10 people

    that's fucking AWESOME staffing (not to mention it's more than two, but i realize reality is not your strong point)

  • ||

    The whole country, dunphy. The whole country. ::facepalm::

    BTW, your smartass dickwad attitude, here, isn't helping your case. At all. Either you want to persuade people that they are wrong, or you're just being an adolescent troll.

    Let me know if I should keep you off the ignore list.

  • ||

    i was referring to the cases i follow - iow local ones.

    since there are literally hundreds of cases nationwide, i can't (nor do you) follow them all

    what i am saying is if i know that just within my county and neighboring 2 counties i can point to at least a half dozen examples that refute what the OP said in regards to the entire nation - then, he's full of shit

    i provided evidence. he provided lies, i refuted with evidence

    hth

  • ||

    Yeah, but the Schoolcraft incident was the collusion of a very, very large number of officers to prevent a lone whistleblower from telling his story.

    And the punchline on that is the fact that he wasn't making any individuals look bad, he was threatening a quota system that they probably had a general group dislike for. Yet they circled the tribal wagons and tried to make sure that he could never threaten the system.

    It is hard to be surprised when one bad cop tries to cover the tracks of his own misdeeds. That's human nature. But when the entire division joins ranks to commit multiple major felonies to protect a bad policy? wow.

  • Apogee||

    Dunphy? Comment?

  • ||

    if the facts are as claimed (and maybe they are or aren't. what i frequently find, for example from mumia supporters, is people tend to seek out only the sources that support their metanarrative) then clearly that PD, or at least that division thereof has some SERIOUS corruption issues.

    that seems clear enough

  • ||

    cops rat out their fellow officers all the time, and that often results in firing and criminal prosecution

    you mean firing of the rats?

  • ||

    no, of the officers who did the wrong.

    as i've mentioned NUMEROUS examples - LOCALLY. just in the pierce/sno/king county area.

    if you can't find examples, you aren't looking. but of course you wouldn't be since that would cause cognitive dissonance. you'd prefer to believe the lies you can continue to believe as long as you only look at (see again:selection bias) reason.com but not other sources.

  • Wind Rider||

    Oh, I'll happily believe there's a whole buttload of cops so crappy up there in the NW that their fellow officers can't even tolerate them. That silver haired and obnoxiously pompous and loud jackass that moved over to do reality tv voice overs is a pretty fucking annoying example.

  • ||

    hey man, i refuse to apologize for oregon for pete's sake. they are just fucked up down there. it's all the anarchy. and the big road signs

  • Highway||

    Then why isn't it publicized. Do they want to stop people thinking "All cops are bad cops"? Because that's the impression we get when these guys are quietly fired, after months of paid leave, quiet internal investigations, "No comment" statements, stonewalling answers, and the Blue Wall of Silence.

    Want to correct that? Then proclaim it LOUDLY from the rooftops: "This guy messed up, and we got rid of him. He is no longer welcome on our force because he is not up to our standards. Anyone else who wants to hire him should take this into account."

    I don't give a crap if that violates some union hush-up-and-sweep-it-under-the-rug law. I don't care if it *completely ruins* the rest of the life of the person who got himself into a position of power and then abused it. Let people decide in the future if the guy is worth taking a chance on. But make it known:

    "Our police force will not tolerate anyone who acts like this."

    Until that happens, it doesn't matter what the 'truth' that cops think is. Police are losing the PR war. And are not doing anything to fix it. It's in your own best interests.

  • ||

    it IS publicized. fuck, the paul schene, don griffee, bonar (i forget the guys first name) cases were ALL OVER the local media.

    but if you only go to reason.com you are only seeing what you want to see.

    the reality is that cops inform on other cops who are doing criminal shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

    heck, there was just a local cop who got a one year sentence for drug offenses he committed (mostly on duty).

    there was the cop in sno county who was indicted for killing the guy

    there was the griffee case where he was charged for assault and several cops testified AGAINST him

    those were JUST LOCAL CASES

    but they aren't going to make reason.com

    step outside your narrow bubble and look at reality. not reality as selectively written about here, but y'know. what actually happens every fucking day in the real world.

    paul schene case was STARTED because a detective found evidence he assaulted somebody and immediately did the right thing

    happens all the fucking time

  • Wind Rider||

    Hey, if it's happening "ALL THE FUCKING TIME" then that's ipso facto proof that there's some "PRETTY FUCKING SHITASS COPS RUNNING AROUND".

    Thanks for re-inforcing the point we make that pisses you off to no end.

  • jerk||

    now that's just sneaky arguing. I like it.

  • ||

    it does have kind of a william kunstler on crack appeal, I must admit.

  • ||

    How many cops ever arrest an IRS revenue officer upon a comnplaint from a citizen that the revenue officer ordered the levy of the citizen's bank account?

    How many cops have arrested any of the other LEO types who participated in the massacre at WACO?

    How many cops have stepped forward to arrest the goons who assassinated Jose Guereno last month in Arizona?

    How many cops have stepped up and arrested an ATF agent or any other LEO for charging a person with unlawful possession of firearms. Remember Dunphy, the 2nd amendment does not admit of ANY exceptions; thus, any cop who arrests a person for possessing a firearm without registration is betraying the constitution.

    How many cops have stepped up demanding an end to qualified immunity for their brethern? Remember, the constitution does not provide that the king's men are immune from liability to which everbody else is subject.

    How many cops have stepped up demanding an end to their unions? There is no express grant of power contained in any constitution, US or state of Washington, permitting the state to establish collectivisit entities to which one must join in order to partake of the job in question?

    Few, if any.

  • ||

    dunphy, let's say I'm willing to believe that the integrity of your department is exactly how you described. Cops are willing to report the misdeeds of their fellow cops, and do so without repercussions. But how indicative is that of other PDs? Isn't the culture different, sometimes radically, from PD to PD?

    I somehow doubt if what you described above would go over very well in places like in the New Orleans or New York PDs.

  • ||

    new orleans PD is corrupt as fuck. NOBODY with a brain denies that. the entire city is also corrupt and incompetent as fuck. and god let's not forget the classic mayor "new orleans needs to remain a chocolate city" nagin, both a racist and an incompetent

    i didn't say all cops were good. you are damn right. some are bad. and some , while not personally doing bad shit, would not turn in a fellow officer for doing so.

    that's bad. it's also reality

    but again, let's discuss this incident. the cop who smashed the cell phone should be charged, assuming he did what was alleged. no question

  • Solanum||

    From what I've seen and read, the cops who smashed cell phones should at the very least be charged with destruction of evidence. I'll hold off on making judgements on the actual shootings until more evidence, preferably from independent sources, comes out.

  • ||

    thats the same assessment i came to.

    agnostic on the shooting, but the smashing was a crime imo without really any question.

    at a minimum evidence destruction, vandalism, etc.

  • Highway||

    Why aren't they going to make reason.com? You think it's *that* one-sided? You think reason wouldn't be happy to print that stories like this happen, and heads *actually* roll? It would validate them, it would look good, it would show a good trend.

    My point still stands: The police departments are not doing a good job of PR if the stories are not getting out. Now whether they want it that way (because they don't want to look like they're throwing 'their' guys under the bus, so they keep it quiet) or whether they don't want it that way, the public opinion trend is still going the wrong way.

    And there are still no politicians who are standing up against this, but I can only blame the police departments for that as much as they withhold support for any politician who openly defies the police.

  • Coeus||

    Why aren't they going to make reason.com? You think it's *that* one-sided? You think reason wouldn't be happy to print that stories like this happen, and heads *actually* roll?

    Most of the stories are reported before any police investigation is undertaken. The writers here would have to be presentient to actually slant stuff that way.

  • ||

    But its also the failure of LEOs to stand up for First Priniciples. As I asked upthread a few minutes ago, how many cops do you see yelling and screaming for an end to:

    (1) The WoD

    (2) Immunity, qualified or otherwise, for their brethern

    (3) police unions

    (4) enforcement of any firearm laws which, in any way, forces one to interface with the state in the purchase and ownership of the same

    (5) home invasions for service or warrants or arrests

    (6) SWAT and the overall militariztion of local and county forces

    (7) DARE

    (8) taxpayer financing of their health insurance

    (9) the war on being taped while on duty

    How many? There is a greater probability that Joe from Lowell will post pictures tomorrow of his threesome with John and Fluffy than there is of a single cop demanding all of the above.

  • ||

    so, are you upset at cops for failing to agree with you ideologically?

    let's remember that ultimtely - every SWAT warrant is signed by a judge. every drug law they enforce was passed by a congress elected by the people.

    but it's never their fault. it's the cops. because they magically made the law and signed the warrants

  • Coeus||

    every drug law they enforce was passed by a congress elected by the people.

    Once again, conviently forgetting that Police Unions are the heaviest lobbiers for these laws.

  • ||

    evidence please!

  • Coeus||

    For your state at least, not available to the public (suprise). Do me a favor and login and report back.

    http://wacops.org/index.cfm?zo.....N=14529865

    As to others, for once my google-fu fails me. I find it stated in numerous articles, but no cites. Are you asking because you genuinely don't believe me, or are you asking because you knew I'd have to be a member to find out what legislation they're pimping?

  • ||

    well, you have to define terms. i assume that heavist lobbiers refers to money contributed.

    i have no idea if police unions are the heaviest as it appears you are claiming. it's an extraordinary claim and thus requires evidence. i have personally viewed my unions' financial statement as to where our money goes. i know that zero goes to lobbying for stricter drug laws.

    and i know that the VP (haven't spoke to the president) of our union feels the same about MJ as i do. he could not care less if people smoke pot

  • ||

    so you are admitting that you made it up? iow, you don't know what you claim to be true is true and you can't find evidence to support it, but you said it anyway?

    fair enuf. doesn't say a lot about your penchant for truth or accuracy though.

    although i'll give you props for admitting as much

  • Coeus||

    so you are admitting that you made it up? iow, you don't know what you claim to be true is true and you can't find evidence to support it, but you said it anyway?

    I didn't make it up, I have read it from multiple sources. Until now, I had not looked for cites. I couldn't find any and told you so. There is, however, no denying that Police Unions lobby for laws. I just can't find anything listing ammounts. So, yes. I may very well be wrong about who spends the most.


    fair enuf. doesn't say a lot about your penchant for truth or accuracy though.

    although i'll give you props for admitting as much

    Great. Thanks. Wish I could say the same for you. You ever look up electrocution in the dictionary?

  • Matt||

    "let's remember that ultimtely - every SWAT warrant is signed by a judge. every drug law they enforce was passed by a congress elected by the people."

    And that makes it OK, why?

    Slavery and segregation were legal once, too. No doubt you'd be defending arresting Rosa Parks for sitting in the front of the bus, too.

  • ||

    i agree. cops generally do a mediocre job of PR. but here's what you miss. *we* don't decide what stories get published. media outlets do. we can do press releases until we are blue in the face. if the press doesn't report them, we have no power to do otherwise. we don't do the news, we don't own the seattle times, or the Seattle-pi.

    the very same people who laud reason for reporting stuff the mainstream media won't report, can't understand that it works both ways.

    fuck, i had TWO defensive uses of a handgun by a civilian cases in 2 days last week.

    do you think EITHER will make the presses? OF COURSE NOT

    press will not report a defensive use of handgun in msot cases where no shots are fired.

    it messes with their anti-gun ideology.

    do you grok it?

    newspapers don't report "cop disarms violent man with knife. no injuries, no shots fired". it's hard enough to get my PD to issue a press release, but evn when we do - they don't carry it

    are you such a unthinking tool of the media that you let them define your reality for you?

    that's pretty fucking sad, frankly.

    i prefer to actually y;'know deal with reality

    not what the seattle-pi CHOOSES to inform me of

  • jerk||

    I'm glad you weather the storm, stick around.

  • ||

    preach it, brotha!

  • ||

    christ, not this lie ... AGAIN

    " Do they want to stop people thinking "All cops are bad cops"? "

    nowhere near all people, heck not even a decent %age of people think anything of the sort. the world outside the environs of reason (iow the real world) SAYS IN POLL AFTER POLL here in the USA that cops are amongst the most respected of all professions. every time the public is polled, cops get favorable results.

    that's reality.

  • Coeus||

    I wonder what a poll of those who've actually had an encounter with police would say?

  • ||

    i would suspect MOST people have had some sort of encounter with police by the time they were 25 or so. at least a traffic stop, cop came to shut a party down, etc.

    i had had many by the time i graduated college, from shutting my band down, to traffic stops, to being proned out at gunpoint as a robbery suspect.

    and i was always treated fairly and with respect, except for the one time i got fucking snarky and acted like a dick, and the cop kind of was a dick, in response

    lesson learned

    again, the reality stands. it's yet another reason-meme-lie that i see here constantly. that's why i pointed it out when i saw it and of course you can't be intellectually honest and acknowledge that i am correcting in pointing out its a fallacious meme

  • Coeus||

    be intellectually honest and acknowledge that i am correcting in pointing out its a fallacious meme

    That's pretty rich comming from a guy who demanded cites about how unreliable drug dogs are when the article you were commenting on had one

    Besides, all I did was ask a question.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    cops rat out their fellow officers all the time...

    Do you phrase filing reports about civilian criminal activity "ratting out"?

  • ||

    i was responding in the language of the person i was responding to

    i don't personally consider that the proper terminology

    turning in an officer who is corrupt is not ratty at all. it is noble

  • cynical||

    "cops rat out their fellow officers all the time, and that often results in firing and criminal prosecution"

    Which sets an example for anyone else that is thinking about ratting.

  • ||

    i was referring to the rattee not ratter

  • cynical||

    Yes, that was an intentional misreading of an ambiguous statement for humorous effect.

  • ||

    well, that's a fair cop y0! (props to gilbert and sullivan)

  • Matt||

    I've seen you make this claim a couple times now, and so far I've only seen you reference this "schene" guy, who, by your own admission, got away with it (whatever "it" is... not familiar with the case).

    Ya think maybe you could make a little more of an effort to come up with good examples?

  • Almanian||

    Fuck tha pole lease

    (Muppet Version - my favorite)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....verified=1

  • ||

    WOW! I am not surprised at all....no wonder they want to take all of our camera's away: http://oakparkrepublic.blogspo.....chmen.html

    And of course they could never allow us to carry guns....even unloaded ones!: http://oakparkrepublic.blogspo.....ounds.html

  • ||

    Dunphy,

    This is for you. I can imagine you doing THIS!!!!

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video.....on=1206833

  • Proud Statist||

    What's the point of a libertarian blog flogging this shit? Do you really think a privatized police force would be better and more accountable? Do you really think, or do you just mouth the party line?

  • Dan||

    That comment made sense to you when you wrote it? Hm.

  • Matt||

    No, you're right, we should just keep our mouths shut and thank the good lord for our infallible, benevolent protectors.

  • ||

    THE BREAKING STRAINS OF EMPIRE WARFARE

    [Japan and the Big One]

    What Japan represented and does represent to the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex the [EMPIRE] is two things; The first of which is the Eastern Pearl of its Nuclear Choke Chain Necklace running from [FOOTHOLD] Germany to [FOOTHOLD] Okinawa, with a forward nuclear capacity to First Strike the [PDRC] Peoples Democratic Republic of China, along with its Blue and Gold necklace chain of Trident Submarines, and the second which has now been damaged is its standing as the economic base of the [EMPIRE] made in Japan long ago replaced made in the [USA] United States of America, and with the Big One off of Northern Japan, other nations are having to take up the slack but the profits are no longer flowing to the [EMPIRE] and Wall St., the [ROK] Republic of South Korea is a high risk economic problem, with the question of is the [EMPIRE] willing to risk the chance of a nuclear confrontation over a renewed military war on the Korean Peninsula, and the loss of Billions if not Trillions in new major industrial development sites relocated from Japan to the [ROK], not likely.

    [The Left Coast Big One!]

    Prof. Pat Abbott of San Diego, has said that every possible tectonic plate in the Pacific Ring of Fire has moved and the only one left is the San Andreas, and it is long over due, will it bring the [EMPIRE] economically to its knees? That is fast becoming a question as most of the industry that was on the Left Coast has or is leaving not due environmental reasons as much as being taxed off the Left Coast moving to more pro-business countries and locations across the [EMPIRE], you can hear the sucking sound as they leave. But, when the San Andreas goes, and it will, yes the [EMPIRE] will be brought to its knees economically rapidly, compared to its slow but steady present decline.

    [Empire not equal to the strain]

    Admiral Mike Mullen on the subject of what is the [EMPIRES] biggest threat feels it is its catastrophe national debt, which has reached a to point too where its Military Industrial Complex is consuming higher and higher levels of the [EMPIRES] [GDP] Gross Domestic Product, along with resources just to maintain present operations, maintenance pay and benefits, combined with other forms of overhead let along projected increases due to the continued up tick in ever mounting operational military commitments over diplomatic solutions, it has come to the point where a gap has developed between the [EMPIRE] society and its military, those in uniform, as one is suffering to support that complex as the other is suffering to protect those weighted with the cost of the [EMPIRES] Wars of Economic Stimulus, that is not doing any Stimulation, but has become a weight to economic recovery or growth. A lesson not understood but taught by Sun Tzu in the Art of War, if a campaign or war is protracted, the resources of the State, will not be equal to the strain.

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

  • Amakudari||

    Aww yeah. Like a fine wine.

  • Matt||

    Do yourself a favor and check-in somewhere.

  • ||

    Antbody remember that Three Stooges short where they are photographers and they get sent to that country (I think the name of the country was Vulgaria) where cameras were a capital offense? BEWARE THIS SILLY COMEDY BECOMING REALITY!!!

  • ||

    "Moe is their leader."

  • Antbody||

    No.

  • Sidd Finch||

    "based on the continuous shoddy reporting i have been seeing here (see the other post here that claimed a woman was convicted of "possessing pot" when in fact she was convicted of manufacture (iow growing) 19 plants), it's probably best to assume the blog post is wrong until proven otherwise."

    I haven't been impressed with Riggs either.

    "Miami Police shot up a vehicle and its occupant in the middle of a crowded neighborhood last Memorial Day weekend because they thought the driver was armed."

    The guy trying to run people over had nothing to do with it?

  • Coeus||

    The guy trying to run people over had nothing to do with it?

    It shouldn't have. He was stopped when they unloaded.

  • Sidd Finch||

    It shouldn't have, but apparently did. That seems important to me.

  • ||

    Car was in park at the time they unloaded the coup-de-grace volley on him. Couldn't have been trying to run anyone over with the car in park.

  • ||

    "cap'n, we are going no where mighty fast."

  • Sidd Finch||

    If he had fired at the cops, but they shot him with the safety on ... that would be relevant, no?

  • ||

    Yes. That would have been much preferable. Not just to the dead guy, but to the 4 other people who got shot.

  • ||

    my safety is my trigger finger

  • Matt||

    I'll remember that when you pull me over and I'm deciding whether or not to... well... nevermind.... you see how dangerous your position is, right? One day the people you are supposed to protect are going to shit all over you... with the bullets you hide behind.

  • Robert||

    Those of you who thought the disappearance of The Agitator would lead to less agita here, forget it -- there's always plenty of this to go around.

  • ||

    This "vehicle is a deadly weapon" justification for police shootings has me worked up. We've seen quite a few shootings in recent years where the official (and usually sanctioned) line is that officers were in danger from someone trying to run them down.

    This is utter nonsense. There are very, very few situations where such a claim could possibly hold water. Basically we are talking about a madman motorist plowing into a crowd on purpose or circling around and attempting to back over someone a second time. I don't think there are any examples of shootings happening in these situations at all. If so, it is exceptionally rare.

    What is very normal in these scenarios is person is fleeing in car, police jump out with gun and when car doesn't stop, they shoot. Or maybe an officer gets too close to a fleeing suspect's vehicle placing spike strips and almost gets clipped. Or police try to direct vehicle operator to go, or not go in a certain direction. Operator doesn't do as expected, cop jumps in front of car or on hood. Cop opens fire. We've seen both of these recently. Once the shooting starts, it doesn't stop.

    I witnessed an officer jump on the hood of a car attempting to make a left turn into parking for a football game - as directed by another officer. The officer on the hood started screaming obscenities and going on about the driver trying to run him down. I saw the whole thing - the cop ran 10 feet to jump on the hood of the vehicle moving at 5 mph. Luckily the other officer intervened and told him that he had told the guy to go. Pretty much the exact situation that got a guy killed outside a bar fight recently.

    Shooting at the driver of a vehicle should never be ruled justified unless there is no other option to avoid someone being hit and killed. So any type of driving at less than 30mph that doesn't involve pinning someone against a building or backing up and driving over them is not reasonable cause to open fire. Unfortunately neither public policy nor the courts agree with me on this one.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Why would a cop try to go all T.J. Hooker anyway? I doubt that is taught at the academy. It seems really dangerous. Like this smart cop who was too embarassed to admit his cruiser was stolen, so he held onto the car for a quarter mile... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com.....p-killing/

  • Sidd Finch||

    "This "vehicle is a deadly weapon" justification for police shootings has me worked up."

    Me too, which is why I think "because they thought the driver was armed" is a pretty shitty explanation.

  • Anonymous Observer||

    No different than cops screaming "Stop resisting" as they beat a helpless suspect because they can't be sued if they claim resisting arrest. It's SOP around here.

  • ||

    and of course that's fallacious. they CAN be sued if it can be proven they were lying about the resisting...

    saying "Stop resisting" is not a get out of lawsuit card.

  • ||

    One more thing... the cops took three days to finally conduct a thorough search of the vehicle and locate a gun on the floor behind the driver's seat. One of the little tidbits you get from watching the new cell phone video is that the first thing the police do after the shooting stops is to open the rear driver's side door and look in the back of the car. This door appears to remain open until well after the sun is up the next morning, based on photos in the paper.

    But nobody saw a gun in the floorboard. I dunno. Pretty sketchy. By itself maybe just an idol curiosity. But when combined with the swift ID as the shooter in another case and the knee-jerk suppression of independent witnesses, including seizing the camera from a local news station.... well, when does coincidence become pattern?

  • ||

    and yes, that was an ironic pun.

  • Joe M||

    It was an isolated incident.

  • ||

    A friend of mine was taking Arabic classes with a local police (AZ) officer who made some highly disturbing comments about drop guns.

  • ||

    Disturbing in that some local cops apparently have them at the ready. Not related to this incident.

  • ||

    or what is disturbing is how fucking gullible you are... hth

  • Coeus||

    Example of a cop using a drop gun and suffering no consequences:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z3XBzVYt6Q

  • Joe M||

    The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene,

    Okay, that is some of the most disingenuous bullshit I've read all day. Yeah he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the scene, because he was walking away from a bunch of screaming cops telling him to stop filming. I mean, god damn, talk about circular reasoning.

  • TRTB||

    Agreed. That is so fucking egregious that I'd like to see a separate charge brought up specifically for that.

  • Robert||

    MDC

  • ben||

    The cops' reactions after these kinds of shootings seems like their in the same mindset as someone caught on To Catch a Predator. For both, their sick fantasy has been exposed (for cops, the desire to shoot the shit out of the bad guy) and they're desperate in their attempt to cover it up.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    The only time I ever see a cop not speeding is when he's doing 10mph under the speed limit, clogging up traffic, daring someone to attempt to pass him.

    Correlation: 100%

    I see police officers on a daily basis using their cell phones, hell, using their laptops while driving.

    Correlation: 100%

    You can see thru the back window of a car whether or not someone is wearing a seat belt. Roughly half of the cops that I see are not wearing their law-mandated seat belts.

    Correlation: 50%

    Any of these acts by the "little people" will get their ass a ticket. All three will get the poor sap a view of the inside of a jail.

    I will believe in the concept of a "good cop" when I see a cop getting a ticket.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    ... Hobbit

  • Coeus||

    Sadly, many states have exempted the cops from seatbelt and cellphone laws.

  • ||

    as has mine. ditto for ambulances and fire trucks.

    also taxis, on duty (iow with passenger) are exempt from seatbelt laws

  • Robert||

    I'd give them a pass on the seat belts. They may need to get out on short notice.

    Same with delivery people (such as postal employees) in a truck stopping frequently. There it's not a matter of short notice, but time when they have to get out so frequently.

    I'm getting signatures on petitions now, being driven house to house in a car, and even though I'm religious about safety belts in general, it would be ridiculous to keep putting it on and taking it off every block or so in this case.

  • CE||

    an adrenaline-fueled and agitated-looking Miami police officer circling his Ford Expedition, pointing a gun through the windows at Benoit and his girlfriend. Pretty soon, cops swarm the car and force Benoit and his girlfriend to exit the vehicle.

    Sounds an awful lot like assault with a deadly weapon, false arrest, and wrongful imprisonment.

  • Shocked||

    I wonder if everything was reveresed, how would it go down. Let's say the suspect did fire on and shoot cops for no reason. Benoit films the whole scene, which would be evidence of the murder of cops. But he decides to destroy the evidence because he doesn't like cops. I bet we would still be charege for destroying evidence even though he filmed cops.

  • ||

    One of the little tidbits you get from watching the new cell phone video is that the first thing the police do after the shooting stops is to open the rear driver's side door and look in the back of the car. This door appears to remain open until well after the sun is up the next morning, based on photos in the paper.

    So, do we have a reasonable doubt that the gun was there before the police shot the driver?

  • ||

    One more thought: Even if the gun was there, its irrelevant to whether the shooting was justified. No one claims that the dead guy shot at the cops, brandished a gun, or otherwise used the gun to create a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious harm.

    Its irrelevant. They might as well claim they found a gun at his house, as far as the gun creating the legal basis for self-defense.

  • GILMORE||

    Benoit didn’t turn over a copy of the video until he was served with a subpoena.

    Anyone who doesn't immediately surrender their property and their privacy to the State on 'polite request' (aka 'smashing/forcible removal') is clearly a suspect for further questioning.

  • ||

    Miami BEACH Police Department, NOT Miami Police Department --- different jursidictions.

  • ||

    The point of the article is well-taken but the reporting is amateurish. This incident involved the Miami Beach Police, not the Miami Police. Miami and Miami Beach are different cities with different police departments. And the incident occurred on Collins Avenue. There is no Collins Street in Miami Beach.

    Learn the basics of journalism, and have your copy reviewed by a competent copy editor.

  • Random Dude||

    I think the "basics of journalism" would be actually breaking stories of interest as opposed to parroting AP newswire crap that has tens of thousands of identical articles online.

    This is unique, relevant, actual news. In the particular area of police misbehavior, I can't think of a more informed source for these stories than Reason. I'd rather have them aggregate good info than be pedants who meticulously edit stories I will forget about in 2 minutes.

  • ||

    Hard to claim to have basic journalistic skills when you place the event in the wrong city on a nonexistent street and attribute it to the wrong police department.

  • ||

    a common theme at reason.com

    if the average police recruit wrote his reports with the same disdain for accuracy i see here - he'd be sent for remedial training

    if a doctor did it in a ICU, we'd have another iatrogenic death

    facts matter

  • Random Dude||

    Fine. They should put Miami Beach instead of Miami.

    But that's not the "news" any more than if I wrote an article that consisted of the facts in Encyclopedia Britannica.

    The news of relevance is that a police officer shoots a person in public, is filmed doing so, and an attempted cover-up occurs. Contra AP and what you consider "basic journalism," the actual source is hyperlinked and accessible, which is what allowed you to find the error in the first place.

    "Basic journalism" teaches people that the pyramid model is somehow useful for transmitting information to people in a digital age. "Basic journalism" is also going bankrupt.

  • ||

    part of the reason imo basic journalism is doing so poorly is they (network news/.newspaper) no longer have a de facto monopoly. now that there are alternative sources that can point out how full of shit they are - they suffer. granted, there are other factors, but those are part of it.

    if we didn't have the blogosphere we never would have had the "throbbing memo" response to the dan rather/mapes national guard story (journalistic hackdom of the highest order). iow, journalists cannot get away with the shit they used to get away with.

    also, the dripping, sneering condescension rather et al displayed towards bloggers etc. (pajamas media) was very telling

    they have a "we are the elites" attitude that is loathsome

    regardless, it is not that difficult to get BASIC facts right. reason should be just as beholden as anybody.

    i am expected to do it in my case reports. i expect the same from journalists.

  • Random Dude||

    I agree with you on trying to get the facts right. I disagree that they should prioritize "basics" such as copy-editing over an attempt to discover the truth. That's the logic of a bureaucrat: well the program is performing horribly, but at least all the metrics are well-kept and understood!

    Reason has limited resources and I'm glad they prioritize content and investigative inquiry, even if it's somewhat messier than traditional media.

  • ||

    "I disagree that they should prioritize 'basics' such as copy-editing over an attempt to discover the truth."

    There you go again, setting up a straw man. Nobody said anything about making copy-editing a priority above getting the truth. Stop distorting the issue and grow up.

  • ||

    "Reason has limited resources and I'm glad they prioritize content and investigative inquiry..."

    The author cobbled together somebody else's YouTube video and a couple of stories from the Miami Herald. Is that your idea of "investigative inquiry"??

  • Matt||

    Can I just point out -- before you and dunphy jizz all over yourselves in excitement -- that this was a blog entry and not a journalistic article? The _point_ of it was to draw attention to someone else's published information (journalistic or otherwise) and then to opine.

  • ||

    "'Basic journalism' teaches people that the pyramid model is somehow useful for transmitting information to people in a digital age. 'Basic journalism' is also going bankrupt."

    Oh, stop distorting the issue. By "basics of journalism" I mean nothing more than getting the facts right. Regardless of whether you consider this story "news" or "old news," it is REPORTING, and for that you need to get your facts right. It's a matter of accuracy, not ideology.

  • Random Dude||

    "The author cobbled together somebody else's YouTube video and a couple of stories from the Miami Herald. Is that your idea of "investigative inquiry"??"

    Yes, it has context. It's journalism with commentary. It also selects certain facts to be relevant in a world full of bullshit.

    No one but you gives a damn if it happened in Miami or Miami Beach or whether it happened on Collins Avenue or Collins Street. I doubt anyone was seriously like, "Oh my gosh, why, police killing a person in open public and threatening bystanders would seriously worry me if it happened in Miami, but since it's Miami Beach I think I'll just ignore this information."

    If this reporting is "amateurish," I'd encourage you to go check out traditional journalistic correction lists. It's far more embarrassing. Then perhaps you can go complain that they don't hire enough editors.

  • ||

    "I doubt anyone was seriously like, 'Oh my gosh, why, police killing a person in open public and threatening bystanders would seriously worry me if it happened in Miami, but since it's Miami Beach I think I'll just ignore this information.'"

    I also doubt whether anyone with sense reacted that way. Once again, you construct a straw man and then thrash away at it, thus obscuring the point.

    The point: When an organization like Reason publishes reporting and commentary about a serious issue like the incident in Miami Beach, Reason (presumably) wants to be perceived as a credible and trustworthy source of reporting and commentary. Otherwise, why bother?

    But what makes for credibility in reporting and commentary? Well, when thoughtful people read a story/commentary that gets the most basic facts wrong -- wrong city, wrong street, wrong police department -- they are likely to wonder what else the writer got wrong. That’s called “reason” with a small r.

    When an organization fails to get basic facts right, it can't expect to be taken seriously by intelligent readers. If a reporter at a reputable news organization (think Wall Street Journal, for example) made such glaring errors, he would be put on notice to shape up or hit the road. As he should.

    I agree that the Miami BEACH Police appear to have been way out of line. I want to see them investigated. I also am a longtime fan of Reason and agree with most of their political positions. That is why I cringe when they damage their own credibility by letting a sloppy writer like Mike Riggs publish under their imprint. The very fact that his errors escape Reason’s notice makes me think that Reason doesn't think it's important to get the facts right.

    You make up whatever “facts” you please for your next straw man, Random Dude (what an apt screen name). I am done wasting time reading or responding to your witless, sophomoric drivel.

  • Random Dude||

    "That’s called “reason” with a small r."

    That calls for a drink good sir.

    I think you're taking my point a little too seriously. I don't think making these mistakes are "amateurish," nor do I think that these errors constitute some violation of "basic journalism" and that's all my original statement and following comments intimated. Obviously, you do think that, because it's stated explicitly in your post. That's not a straw man.

  • Random Dude||

    "That’s called “reason” with a small r."

    That calls for a drink good sir.

    I think you're taking my point a little too seriously. I don't think making these mistakes are "amateurish," nor do I think that these errors constitute some violation of "basic journalism" and that's all my original statement and following comments intimated. Obviously, you do think that, because it's stated explicitly in your post. That's not a straw man.

  • Matt||

    An open letter to dunphy:

    Yes, I am bigoted against cops. I'm bigoted against cops for three reasons:

    (1) I can't figure out the psychology of someone who chooses to be a cop -- I think such a person must be mentally ill, and is therefore to not be trusted;

    (2) In high school, my 16 year old friend was growing weed, and a cop on patrol randomly discovered him while he was tending his plants. The cop then decided it was necessary to point a gun at his head while making the arrest. That wasn't necessary, and a sane person should have examined whether or not pointing a firearm at the head of an unarmed, non-violent, non-resisting child, for growing a plant, was something he should be doing, REGARDLESS of what the law says. And he should have quit, rather than continue to do it. This, of course, reinforces (1).

    (3) Every encounter I've had with cops has been the most vile and rude encounter I've ever had to endure when interacting with another person. Even simply calling the sheriffs' office to find out the method by which they determined that my vehicle's windows were too darkly tinted yield condescension and pointless arguments about case law... if he had just answered my question I would have been off the phone in less time. That's not to say that I haven't had equally vile encounters with non-cops, but so what. This, again, reinforces (1).

    In summary, the worst encounters I've ever had with other human beings have been with cops.... and I don't think it's coincidental.

    So, yes -- when I find myself surrounded by cops I get nervous. I think that's the definition of bigotry. But I think, given my own experiences, stories like these, and the vast amount of power that we grant police that regular citizens don't have (even though the police are supposed to be a civilians), that it is YOUR responsibility, AS COPS, to GO OUT OF YOUR WAY, to make sure that the PEOPLE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING know that you're not actually the ones that we should be afraid of.

    And, by your comments in this blog anyway, you're doing a shitty job of it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement