(09-26-2014 05:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Speaking with the SC Troopers I know Groubert is a well respected, experienced law enforcement officer. He was previously decorated for valor after a shootout following a high speed chase that ended up at a bank in Columbia. They all said that Groubert has a reputation as being level headed and cool under pressure, and they to a man believe two things: 1. That Groubert genuinely felt he was in danger and 2. If the Ferguson situation wasn't fresh in everyone's mind he wouldn't be getting charged right now.

These Troopers I spoke to about it are all 20+ year veterans and supervisors who are quick to call out a bad cop, and have access to far more information than most anyone else about the situation.

That may all be true, but you cannot GUESS that someone may be needed to be shot.
Not without knowing for sure.

(09-26-2014 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 05:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Speaking with the SC Troopers I know Groubert is a well respected, experienced law enforcement officer. He was previously decorated for valor after a shootout following a high speed chase that ended up at a bank in Columbia. They all said that Groubert has a reputation as being level headed and cool under pressure, and they to a man believe two things: 1. That Groubert genuinely felt he was in danger and 2. If the Ferguson situation wasn't fresh in everyone's mind he wouldn't be getting charged right now.

These Troopers I spoke to about it are all 20+ year veterans and supervisors who are quick to call out a bad cop, and have access to far more information than most anyone else about the situation.

That may all be true, but you cannot GUESS that someone may be needed to be shot.
Not without knowing for sure.

Easy enough to say from the safety of a keyboard. Not so easy when you are the one having to do the most dangerous part of being a law enforcement officer, a traffic stop.

(09-26-2014 05:52 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 05:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Speaking with the SC Troopers I know Groubert is a well respected, experienced law enforcement officer. He was previously decorated for valor after a shootout following a high speed chase that ended up at a bank in Columbia. They all said that Groubert has a reputation as being level headed and cool under pressure, and they to a man believe two things: 1. That Groubert genuinely felt he was in danger and 2. If the Ferguson situation wasn't fresh in everyone's mind he wouldn't be getting charged right now.

These Troopers I spoke to about it are all 20+ year veterans and supervisors who are quick to call out a bad cop, and have access to far more information than most anyone else about the situation.

That may all be true, but you cannot GUESS that someone may be needed to be shot.
Not without knowing for sure.

Easy enough to say from the safety of a keyboard. Not so easy when you are the one having to do the most dangerous part of being a law enforcement officer, a traffic stop.

I have had my time in the trenches, but the danger is part of the job, to protect and serve can be done only by those that risk their lives by ensuring when they pull the trigger they are doing it for all the right reasons. Not because they are scared.
That being said, the driver did a really dumb thing by his motions of grabbing something out of his vehicle. Anyone confronted by a police
officer should move slowly and discuss with the officer any move they are going to make before they do it, and have the officer agree with
what they are going to do. In this case he could have had the officer do it instead of making such a radical fast move.

(09-26-2014 12:07 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 04:42 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 03:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 03:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  In New York the percentage of guns discharged in arrests involving armed suspects is 0.23% while the percentage of suspects actually shot is 0.11%, in other words, by any objective measure, statistically zero. This does not even factor in whether the shootings were justified or not. Let's be generous and assume that fully half were unjustified and the number approaches statistical zero even more; 0.06%. This is not to condone an unjustifiable shooting but should offer up some perspective on the fact that this is not an epidemic as some here are hypercritically suggesting.

I'm not sure what these numbers have to do with a thread about police shooting an unarmed man.

A little context to offset the hyperbolic claims that these shootings are reaching epidemic proportions. I'd bet that when you factor in the number of total encounters police have with all suspects, armed or not, the percentages of unjustifiable shootings falls even farther below statistical zero. Feel free to disregard it if you wish, I'm not forcing you to accept anything. In fact, the stats for NY were cited in the post above mine and as I suggested fall far lower.

I don't care if it is 0.000000000001%, an unjustifiable homicide should never happen, nor defended. Imagine this happened to you, worse yet, imagine it happened to a love one who you care more about than your own life. You wouldn't be able to comprehend it, nor accept it.

If this was a perfect world and human beings had a failure rate of zero you'd be right. Yes, any unjustifiable shooting is unacceptable and extremely unfortunate but if you come up with a way to prevent human error you be sure and share with the rest of the class because you will have reached what you want; perfection. Until you do, accept that sometimes these things happen, as horrible as that is.

Given the sheer numbers of people the police interact with on a daily basis their failure rate is a statistical blip. Again, and I can't stress this enough, I am just as concerned by events of this nature as the next guy but I don't harbor any pie in the sky illusions that keep me from accepting that sometimes things go wrong with tragic results.

Disarm them all if you want zero occurrences of wrongful shootings but be prepared to be horrified that someone suffocated to death because they reacted to pepper spray or they were tasered too long or suffered some trauma from bean bags hitting them AND watch the criminals go berserk because they'll still have guns.

So, what would your solution be other than to sit here on a bulletin board acting horrified about this for a news cycle until the next thing comes along to provoke your righteous indignation?

(09-25-2014 04:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 10:31 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Holy sh!t!!!! Cop says "Get your license", Dude goes back into the car to get it - shooting begins. Wow.

my audio sucks, is that what was said?

Just saw this earlier on the tv, dudes up for whatever charges. Assault with deadly weapon or whatevers appropriate here.

Ridiculous.

So far, every audio i've heard, you can hear the cop say "get your license", but you don't hear the victim say anything. But it may be loke you, JMU.. just my audio stinking it up on my devices

(09-26-2014 06:29 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  So, what would your solution be other than to sit here on a bulletin board acting horrified about this for a news cycle until the next thing comes along to provoke your righteous indignation?

American police do a lot more shooting than any other police force in the world. More shots were fired in that single incident in Ferguson, MO than were fired by the entire German police force in six whole weeks.

First step is to redefine the "us vs. them" police mentality. For instance, this comment thread at PoliceLink has examples of t-shirts the law enforcement posters found amusing.

Quote:-- "In God we trust, all others get searched,"

-- "A picture of an electric chair with the caption: JUSTICE: Regular or Crispy"

-- "B.D.R.T Baby Daddy Removal Team on the back and the initials on front with handcuffs. You should see peoples faces when I wear it....HAHAHAHA"

-- "Human trash collector. ( above a pair of handcuffs )"

-- "Take No Guff, Cut No Slack, Hook'em, Book'em and Don't Look Back!"

-- "'Boys on the Hood' Pic had two gangbangers jacked up on the hood of a patrol car with two officers."

-- "SWAT T-shirt: 'Happiness is getting the green light!'"

-- "I have one that sates "SWAT SNIPER" on the front and on back it has a picure of a "terrorist" with a shell ripping through his skull and the "pink mist" spraying from the back of his head. Below the picture it reads, "Guerillas in the mist".

-- "Save the police time, beat yourself up"

-- "An ounce of prevention is fine and dandy........ But we prefer 168 grains of cure."

-- "Be good or you might get a visit from the bullet fairy."

-- "Sniper - When you only have 1 shot at an opportunity......We'll make it count"

-- "Law Enforcement......Helping perps slip down stairs since 1766"

-- "Math for Cops.........2 to the chest + 1 to the head = problem solved"

-- "I had a couple of 'em a loooong time ago....1 showed a cop leaning on his rather long nightstick, saying "Police Brutality....the fun part of policework."......obviously not very PC....another was a picture of a LEO with smoke coming from the muzzle of his pistol, with a badguy falling backwards (lookin' like swiss cheese) with the caption.....The best action is OVERREACTION....also not very PC...."

-- "Cops make good roommates...they're used to taking out the trash."

-- "There was also one I saw where there was a big burly looking Sarge behind his desk and the cation read 'It doesn't say kindness and sympathy on the badge.'"

-- "happiness is a confirmed kill"

-- "Park Ranger T-shirt: One of funniest I ever saw: Picture of Smokey the Bear with Riot Gear and he's just poked a protester in the chest with a riot baton. The Caption Reads: "Smokey Don't Play That". Funny!"

-- "My Daddy can Taser your Daddy"

-- "School Patrol - You fail em, we jail em"

-- "Got one that says, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you."

I find completely, utterly unacceptable that public servants would look upon Americans in such a way.

(09-26-2014 09:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 06:29 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  So, what would your solution be other than to sit here on a bulletin board acting horrified about this for a news cycle until the next thing comes along to provoke your righteous indignation?

American police do a lot more shooting than any other police force in the world. More shots were fired in that single incident in Ferguson, MO than were fired by the entire German police force in six whole weeks.
First step is to redefine the "us vs. them" police mentality. For instance, this comment thread at PoliceLink has examples of t-shirts the law enforcement posters found amusing.

Quote:-- "In God we trust, all others get searched,"
-- "A picture of an electric chair with the caption: JUSTICE: Regular or Crispy"
-- "B.D.R.T Baby Daddy Removal Team on the back and the initials on front with handcuffs. You should see peoples faces when I wear it....HAHAHAHA"
-- "Human trash collector. ( above a pair of handcuffs )"
-- "Take No Guff, Cut No Slack, Hook'em, Book'em and Don't Look Back!"
-- "'Boys on the Hood' Pic had two gangbangers jacked up on the hood of a patrol car with two officers."
-- "SWAT T-shirt: 'Happiness is getting the green light!'"
-- "I have one that sates "SWAT SNIPER" on the front and on back it has a picure of a "terrorist" with a shell ripping through his skull and the "pink mist" spraying from the back of his head. Below the picture it reads, "Guerillas in the mist".
-- "Save the police time, beat yourself up"
-- "An ounce of prevention is fine and dandy........ But we prefer 168 grains of cure."
-- "Be good or you might get a visit from the bullet fairy."
-- "Sniper - When you only have 1 shot at an opportunity......We'll make it count"
-- "Law Enforcement......Helping perps slip down stairs since 1766"
-- "Math for Cops.........2 to the chest + 1 to the head = problem solved"
-- "I had a couple of 'em a loooong time ago....1 showed a cop leaning on his rather long nightstick, saying "Police Brutality....the fun part of policework."......obviously not very PC....another was a picture of a LEO with smoke coming from the muzzle of his pistol, with a badguy falling backwards (lookin' like swiss cheese) with the caption.....The best action is OVERREACTION....also not very PC...."
-- "Cops make good roommates...they're used to taking out the trash."
-- "There was also one I saw where there was a big burly looking Sarge behind his desk and the cation read 'It doesn't say kindness and sympathy on the badge.'"
-- "happiness is a confirmed kill"
-- "Park Ranger T-shirt: One of funniest I ever saw: Picture of Smokey the Bear with Riot Gear and he's just poked a protester in the chest with a riot baton. The Caption Reads: "Smokey Don't Play That". Funny!"
-- "My Daddy can Taser your Daddy"
-- "School Patrol - You fail em, we jail em"
-- "Got one that says, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you."

I find completely, utterly unacceptable that public servants would look upon Americans in such a way.

What people do not realize is the extent to which the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who staff every federal agency have virtually the same attitude toward the public that they are supposed to serve.

(09-26-2014 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What people do not realize is the extent to which the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who staff every federal agency have virtually the same attitude toward the public that they are supposed to serve.

That's why they work in unmarked buildings with security guards (at least around Baltimore)

There has been some recent discussion of whether administrative law is even legal.

(09-26-2014 10:22 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 10:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What people do not realize is the extent to which the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who staff every federal agency have virtually the same attitude toward the public that they are supposed to serve.

That's why they work in unmarked buildings with security guards (at least around Baltimore)
There has been some recent discussion of whether administrative law is even legal.

I'd do three things:
1) Congressional review. Any new regulation with an impact over, say, $100 million must go to a congressional review board before taking effect, and such board decides whether it should be referred to a congressional up-or-down vote before taking effect. And any new regulation, regardless of impact, where 20% of both houses sign a review petition must also go to an up-or-down vote. For the up-or-down vote, 50% plus 1 passes it in both houses and it is not subject to filibuster in the senate. If not voted within 3 months, that's treated as a down.
2) Sunset. Every agency must face sunset review every 10 years, starting with the year in which it hits the next multiple of 10 years from its inception. Agencies must be affirmatively voted by both houses in order to continue. Agencies that have been merged or renamed start based on the first year of the first predecessor agency. When the agency faces sunset review, any regulation issued by that agency may be reviewed individually for sunset purposes.
3) Separation of powers/Due process. Right now, if you have a dispute with an agency, it is adjudicated in a hearing before an administrative law judge--who reports ultimately to the executive director of that agency. That violates the procedural due process requirement for a hearing before a disinterested judge. Either 1) do what Texas and Oregon have done and create an office of administrative hearings that is separate from any of the agencies and hears all disputes, or 2) do what Europe does and create separate Article III administrative law courts in every federal judicial district. Option 2 is better for many reasons, not the least because under option 1 you still have judicial power being exercised by the executive branch.

I have had some conversations with Rand Paul about putting together a bill to accomplish these changes.

(09-26-2014 10:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd do three things:
1) Congressional review. Any new regulation with an impact over, say, $100 million must go to a congressional review board before taking effect, and such board decides whether it should be referred to a congressional up-or-down vote before taking effect. And any new regulation, regardless of impact, where 20% of both houses sign a review petition must also go to an up-or-down vote. For the up-or-down vote, 50% plus 1 passes it in both houses and it is not subject to filibuster in the senate. If not voted within 3 months, that's treated as a down.

This sounds an awful lot like a legislative veto, which has already been ruled unconstitutional (and while the ruling made little sense I don't see it being overturned anytime soon). Once the legislature delegates regulatory authority to the executive they cannot maintain the right to veto the resulting regulations without violating the separation of powers. How would you get around INS v. Chada?

(09-26-2014 10:58 AM)jh Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 10:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd do three things:
1) Congressional review. Any new regulation with an impact over, say, $100 million must go to a congressional review board before taking effect, and such board decides whether it should be referred to a congressional up-or-down vote before taking effect. And any new regulation, regardless of impact, where 20% of both houses sign a review petition must also go to an up-or-down vote. For the up-or-down vote, 50% plus 1 passes it in both houses and it is not subject to filibuster in the senate. If not voted within 3 months, that's treated as a down.

This sounds an awful lot like a legislative veto, which has already been ruled unconstitutional (and while the ruling made little sense I don't see it being overturned anytime soon). Once the legislature delegates regulatory authority to the executive they cannot maintain the right to veto the resulting regulations without violating the separation of powers. How would you get around INS v. Chada?

One, you could solve the problem by amending the Constitution, and I would favor such an Amendment if necessary, but I don't think it is necessary.

Two, Chada was a unique factual situation with really harmful potential consequences--Chada would become essentially a stateless person. To give an idea, the INS and attorney general, although nominally the respondents to Chada's appeal, actually argued in favor of Chada's position before the Court. Not only were the facts unusual, but the specific legislative process was also a bit odd, making it stick out like a sore thumb. The Court typically tries to craft a way out of the box when that occurs. And in lots of these situations, as you note here, the reasoning comes up short of making sense. So the Court typically tries to make the way out as narrow as possible to give them freedom later.

Three, the way out of the box chosen by the Court--the Presentment Clause and bicameralism--could be overcome by a revision to the Administrative Procedure Act. The problem here was that the specific procedure established under 244 was inconsistent with the general procedure specified in the APA. The Court typically defers to Congress when possible, but if the APA correctly reflects a reasonable interpretation by Congress of the relevant Constitutional provisions, then 244 doesn't, and vice versa. So if the Court basically has to find either 244 or the APA unconstitutional.

Four, Chada was a case in the enforcement end of the process. The provision that I am proposing affects the rulemaking part of the process. Enforcement is a proper executive function, in which Congress was determined in Chada to be interfering improperly. Rulemaking is a legislative function, which is properly within the purview of Congress. The issue would be whether Congress has the latitude to determine how much of its legislative power to give away to the executive, not how much of enforcement power does Congress have the Constitutional authority to take away from the executive. And that's a much harder argument to make. If you determine that Congress cannot give away part of its legislative power while retaining part, then how do you square that with determining that Congress has the power to give away any? And if Congress cannot give away any, then the whole administrative law structure fails. There is actually at least a theoretical argument that Chada poses a greater threat to my third provision--particularly the Article III courts approach--but I don't think that gets past first base.

IMO, if you do it with a revision to the APA that it covers all rulemaking in all agencies, I think you get by Chada.

I'm skeptical, but it's worth a shot.

Justice White, in Dissent Wrote:Today the Court not only invalidates § 244©(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but also sounds the death knell for nearly 200 other statutory provisions in which Congress has reserved a "legislative veto." For this reason, the Court's decision is of surpassing importance. And it is for this reason that the Court would have been well advised to decide the cases, if possible, on the narrower grounds of separation of powers, leaving for full consideration the constitutionality of other congressional review statutes operating on such varied matters as war powers and agency rulemaking, some of which concern the independent regulatory agencies.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal....html#F3/1

I believe the typical justification why Congress is allowed to delegate its legislative power is that, by doing so, it is diminishing, not aggrandizing, its own powers. Because each branch is assumed to jealously guard its own power, this does not raise the same types of concerns as when one of the branches tries to claim a power of another branch as its own. It could even be argued that forcing Congress into all-or-nothing delegations acts to reduce the amount of delegation by increasing its cost to congressional power. This is probably the closest the majority comes to discussing this issue in Chada.

Justice Burger, in Footnote 16 Wrote:. . . Executive action under legislatively delegated authority that might resemble "legislative" action in some respects is not subject to the approval of both Houses of Congress and the President for the reason that the Constitution does not so require. That kind of Executive action is always subject to check by the terms of the legislation that authorized it; and if that authority is exceeded, it is open to judicial review, as well as the power of Congress to modify or revoke the authority entirely. A one-House veto is clearly legislative in both character and effect, and is not so checked; the need for the check provided by Art. I, §§ 1, 7, is therefore clear. Congress' authority to delegate portions of its power to administrative agencies provides no support for the argument that Congress can constitutionally control administration of the laws by way of a congressional veto.

Of course, as Neomi Reo of George Mason Law has recently been arguing, congressional delegation does aggrandize congressional power. There is no way Congress could have its grubby little fingers (I'm pretty sure she doesn't put it in exactly these terms) in as many things as it does without delegation. In effect, they have exchanged a greater depth of control of a limited number of areas for shallower control over basically everything.

(09-26-2014 12:46 PM)jh Wrote:  [quote=Justice Burger, in Footnote 16] It is clear, therefore, that the Attorney General acts in his presumptively Art. II capacity when he administers the Immigration and Nationality Act.

My proposal impacts the Art. I capacity, not Art. II.

Quote:
Executive action under legislatively delegated authority that might resemble "legislative" action in some respects is not subject to the approval of both Houses of Congress and the President for the reason that the Constitution does not so require. That kind of Executive action is always subject to check by the terms of the legislation that authorized it; and if that authority is exceeded, it is open to judicial review, as well as the power of Congress to modify or revoke the authority entirely.

This specifically refers to executive action, not legislative action. And it notes that it is always subject to check by the terms of the legislation that authorized it. Amending the APA to change the legislative authority would conform to this.

Quote:A one-House veto is clearly legislative in both character and effect, and is not so checked; the need for the check provided by Art. I, §§ 1, 7, is therefore clear. Congress' authority to delegate portions of its power to administrative agencies provides no support for the argument that Congress can constitutionally control administration of the laws by way of a congressional veto.

Note that this addresses specifically the agencies' administration of the laws not the legislative function. That's a huge difference.

Just because the Court decided one case one way does not mean that any case with any similarity will be decided the same way. Burger was very careful to distinguish executive from legislative, and I believe that distinction would be sufficient to distinguish this provision from that case.

(09-26-2014 12:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 12:07 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 04:42 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 03:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 03:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  In New York the percentage of guns discharged in arrests involving armed suspects is 0.23% while the percentage of suspects actually shot is 0.11%, in other words, by any objective measure, statistically zero. This does not even factor in whether the shootings were justified or not. Let's be generous and assume that fully half were unjustified and the number approaches statistical zero even more; 0.06%. This is not to condone an unjustifiable shooting but should offer up some perspective on the fact that this is not an epidemic as some here are hypercritically suggesting.

I'm not sure what these numbers have to do with a thread about police shooting an unarmed man.

A little context to offset the hyperbolic claims that these shootings are reaching epidemic proportions. I'd bet that when you factor in the number of total encounters police have with all suspects, armed or not, the percentages of unjustifiable shootings falls even farther below statistical zero. Feel free to disregard it if you wish, I'm not forcing you to accept anything. In fact, the stats for NY were cited in the post above mine and as I suggested fall far lower.

I don't care if it is 0.000000000001%, an unjustifiable homicide should never happen, nor defended. Imagine this happened to you, worse yet, imagine it happened to a love one who you care more about than your own life. You wouldn't be able to comprehend it, nor accept it.

Good grief. And an unjustifiable cheesesteak should never be served. BUT, guess what? It happens. As does cops, in the millions, make mistakes OR sign up that guy with bad intent. Is that an excuse? Of course not. No more than the excuse for the other guy bilking the local Lions club. It happens.

You want better than 0.0000000000000001%? Welcome to your delusionalutopia!

No chance. Never. real world, real world.

you must must be the biggest idiot ever, lacked a proper education, or don't know how to deal with a real situation. Whatever the case may be, you're one individual that has no ability to hold a position in law enforcement... and not to be a dick, I will stop at that.