There's a significant gap between public perception and reality when it comes to police use of force. Studies have shown that the public tends to overestimate the prevalence of police use-of-force incidents, especially those involving racial minorities. This overestimation is often driven by media coverage and personal biases.
For example, a study by the Manhattan Institute found that respondents significantly overestimated the number of nonlethal and fatal police use-of-force incidents, particularly those involving Black Americans. The study also noted that these overestimates were largest among liberal respondents.
It's important to note that while some police use-of-force incidents are indeed serious and warrant attention, the perception of their frequency can be distorted by various factors, including media representation and individual biases
The role of local prosecutors is complex and requires balancing the need for accountability with the realities of legal standards and evidence. Now Liberal prosecutors have indeed been vocal about police use of force, often advocating for reforms and accountability measures. For example, prosecutors like Kim Foxx in Chicago and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia have campaigned on promises of systemic reform, focusing on issues like excessive force and racial disparities in policing sadly often forgetting the realities of legal standards and evidence, and they ignore the supreme court cases dealing with use of force'
The Supreme Court has ruled on several key cases related to police use of force, which have helped shape the legal standards for evaluating such incidents. Here are some notable cases:
Graham v. Connor (1989): This case established the "objective reasonableness" standard for evaluating police use of force. The Court held that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight1.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985): This case addressed the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Plakas v. Drinski (1997): The Court ruled that there is no constitutional duty to use the least amount of force necessary when deadly force is authorized.
Brown v. United States (1921): This case is considered the original decision that laid the groundwork for the "objective reasonableness" standard later articulated in Graham v. Connor.
City of Canton v. Harris (1989): This case addressed the liability of municipalities for failure to train their officers adequately, which can lead to excessive use of force.
These cases have had a significant impact on how police use of force is evaluated and have influenced training, policies, and public perception of law enforcement actions. what most of the public doesn't know is that local prosectors already have approved every police use of force policy for each police department they work with.
This conviction against Officer Chris is very unjust & heartbreaking!! Officer Chris is innocent!! The person with the knife was an immediate threat to Officer Chris and the other Officers as well! They were trapped in an elevator for God's sake!! Where could they go??
I pray his defense team appeals the verdict and asks for a mistral.
BTW: Jury members being on their phones and laptops during the trial should be grounds for a mistrial!! That should have NEVER been tolerated.
Austin P.D. is understaffed due to officer betrayal and defunding. This persecution will not help the city get back to healthy manning anytime soon.
There's a significant gap between public perception and reality when it comes to police use of force. Studies have shown that the public tends to overestimate the prevalence of police use-of-force incidents, especially those involving racial minorities. This overestimation is often driven by media coverage and personal biases.
For example, a study by the Manhattan Institute found that respondents significantly overestimated the number of nonlethal and fatal police use-of-force incidents, particularly those involving Black Americans. The study also noted that these overestimates were largest among liberal respondents.
It's important to note that while some police use-of-force incidents are indeed serious and warrant attention, the perception of their frequency can be distorted by various factors, including media representation and individual biases
The role of local prosecutors is complex and requires balancing the need for accountability with the realities of legal standards and evidence. Now Liberal prosecutors have indeed been vocal about police use of force, often advocating for reforms and accountability measures. For example, prosecutors like Kim Foxx in Chicago and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia have campaigned on promises of systemic reform, focusing on issues like excessive force and racial disparities in policing sadly often forgetting the realities of legal standards and evidence, and they ignore the supreme court cases dealing with use of force'
The Supreme Court has ruled on several key cases related to police use of force, which have helped shape the legal standards for evaluating such incidents. Here are some notable cases:
Graham v. Connor (1989): This case established the "objective reasonableness" standard for evaluating police use of force. The Court held that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight1.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985): This case addressed the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. The Court ruled that deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Plakas v. Drinski (1997): The Court ruled that there is no constitutional duty to use the least amount of force necessary when deadly force is authorized.
Brown v. United States (1921): This case is considered the original decision that laid the groundwork for the "objective reasonableness" standard later articulated in Graham v. Connor.
City of Canton v. Harris (1989): This case addressed the liability of municipalities for failure to train their officers adequately, which can lead to excessive use of force.
These cases have had a significant impact on how police use of force is evaluated and have influenced training, policies, and public perception of law enforcement actions. what most of the public doesn't know is that local prosectors already have approved every police use of force policy for each police department they work with.
People neither trust, nor support police because they covered for the bad cops for decades and people got sick of it.
That is not reflected in any data.
In fact. In 2020. Height of BLM. 80% of blacks polled wanted the same or more police presence in their neighborhoods.
Also. Nearly 90% of cops gave body cams & record everything. The body cam footage is public record. Where/How do you think coverups are occurring?
Oh, come on.
I’m not making it up.
You made a claim. I refuted it with evidence.
Here’s the cite.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
Not an annoyance. My apologies, all cops are good.
Oh, well, a POLL.
I cited a reputable poll. Sorry that evidence & information annoys you.
Hopefully nobody.
Ok.
This conviction against Officer Chris is very unjust & heartbreaking!! Officer Chris is innocent!! The person with the knife was an immediate threat to Officer Chris and the other Officers as well! They were trapped in an elevator for God's sake!! Where could they go??
I pray his defense team appeals the verdict and asks for a mistral.
BTW: Jury members being on their phones and laptops during the trial should be grounds for a mistrial!! That should have NEVER been tolerated.