Let's try to avoid flame-baiting in the title, please. --Janthkin
I guess we're starting to see the consequences of all this media scrutiny of the police. In some cases you say rightfully that such scrutiny is deserved. Still, in other cases it leads to bad consequences. The question is, are these consequences truly unintended?
Nick Valencia wrote:Pistol-whipped detective says he didn't shoot attacker because of headlines
(CNN) A Birmingham, Alabama, police detective who was pistol-whipped unconscious said Friday that he hesitated to use force because he didn't want to be accused of needlessly killing an unarmed man.
"A lot of officers are being too cautious because of what's going on in the media," said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous for the safety of his family. "I hesitated because I didn't want to be in the media like I am right now."
Details of last week's incident in the Birmingham enclave of Roebuck remain sketchy -- such as how did the suspect get the officer's weapon -- but the six-year police veteran said he didn't shoot the man who attacked him during a traffic stop because of the outcry surrounding a spate of police shootings nationally.
"We don't want to be in the media," he said. "It's hard times right now for us."
Heath Boackle, a sergeant with the Birmingham Police Department and president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police, said Thursday that cops are "walking on eggshells because of how they're scrutinized in the media."
"We should be thanking the good Lord because he could be dead right now.," Boackle said of the detective who was beaten.
Police Chief A.C. Roper sees the episode -- as well as the reaction, including celebratory and vitriolic comments posted online alongside images of the wounded officer -- as symptomatic of a larger problem, in which some don't respect law enforcement.
"The nobility and integrity of policing has been challenged," Roper said. "As a profession, we have allowed popular culture to draft a narrative which is contrary to the amazing work that so many officers are doing everyday across this nation."
Detective struck with his own weapon
The incident occurred last Friday when the detective was on his way to interview a robbery witness and saw a car that was carrying at least two people traveling erratically on the interstate, according to police.
"He calls for backup and tells the man to stay in the car, but he didn't," Boackle told CNN in a phone interview. "The last thing the officer remembers is getting sucker-punched in a parking lot. The next thing, he's waking up in a hospital bed with staples in his head."
According to Boackle, the detective spoke to Janard Cunningham, who was sitting the car. The detective decided to call for backup so that he could continue his robbery investigation while another officer handled the traffic stop.
While he was calling for backup, Cunningham allegedly exited the car and became aggressive, approaching the detective and repeatedly questioned why he'd been pulled over, the union chief said. The detective considered using force but thought better of it and continued his call when Cunningham hit him, Boackle said.
Cunningham is accused of then "pistol whipping" the officer with his own service weapon, Boackle said.
The officer suffered multiple lacerations to his head and face but is expected to recover from his injuries, according to Boackle. The University of Alabama-Birmingham treated and released him the same day. He's recovering at home and has not yet returned to duty, Boackle said.
Chief calls reaction 'absolutely inhumane'
Adding insult to injury: several bystanders, instead of helping, took pictures of the bloodied officer as he was facedown on the concrete and posted the images on social media, where the officer was mocked.
Many people rose to the officer's defense, but the detective's colleagues were outraged by a collection of posts that seemed to revel in the beating.
"Pistol whipped his ass to sleep," one user wrote, employing the hashtag #FckDaPolice. Another mockingly offered the officer milk and cookies for his "nap time."
Roper, the Birmingham police chief, called the fact bystanders would take pictures of an officer being beaten rather than help him, then proceed to post them, "absolutely inhumane." The online commenters only made it worse.
"It really speaks to the lack of their morality and humanity," the chief said. "People commented on the pictures in a celebratory fashion ... disregarding that this public servant has a family and is committed to serve in some of our most challenging communities."
Police support officer, who is 'doing much better'
Some Birmingham officers feel that "if the roles were reversed, there would be demonstrations" and an "outcry from the public," Boackle said.
"The officer was beaten and just left there. People were there long enough to take pictures of the officer full of blood and put it on social media. ... No one stopped to help," he said. "We're lucky we're not talking about an officer who was shot and killed with his own weapon."
CNN affiliate WBRC tweeted a photo depicting the bleeding officer.
According to the city's police chief, the officer is "doing much better than he was on the day of the attack." Roper said his department stands firmly behind a man who he called a "good officer through these years."
"I gave him a direct order," Roper said. "Your mission is to get better and to spend time with your family. He gladly accepted."
Suspect charged with attempted murder
Cunningham allegedly fled the scene but was apprehended later Friday, police said. He is charged with attempted murder and is being held without bond. A second man taken into custody with Cunningham has not been charged with a crime, police said.
Tracking dogs were brought in to help search for another possible suspect, but authorities later said they believed there was no third person.
Cunningham, 34, of Center Point appeared in court Tuesday where his first hearing was postponed, CNN affiliate WBRC reported. His mother told Jefferson County District Court Judge Shelly Watkins that the family would be hiring a lawyer, according to the Alabama Media Group, a collection of news outlets that includes The Birmingham News.
Paperwork on file in Watkins' office had no lawyer listed for Cunningham. His mother hung up on a CNN reporter seeking comment, and a subsequent voice message left for her was not immediately returned.
"I feel that in today's society, both from law enforcement and the citizens, we have to trust in one another and do the best we can for this world as a whole," Boackle said.
Said the officer who was beaten: "I appreciate everyone's support. I have a concussion and I'm still heavily medicated. Right now, I need to focus on healing and getting better."
CNN's Eliott McLaughlin and Greg Botelho contributed to this report.
Why don't police lives matter? Because a few asshats took photos of this guy and posted stupid comments on the internet? Seems like you are making a leap here.
So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
I like that the "cop feels like he has to walk on eggshells because cops are being watched" thread is so close to the "cops strip and forcefully cavity search woman in public parking lot" thread.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Holy strawman argument, Batman!
Try this; only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, instead of reacting to a dangerous situation as his training and instinct dictated, and wound up losing his gun and getting beat with it.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Holy strawman argument, Batman!
Try this; only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, instead of reacting to a dangerous situation as his training and instinct dictated, and wound up losing his gun and getting beat with it.
Maybe. Keep in mind where nearly all of the information in this case is coming from: the police union.
Luckily, he's not dead, or even seriously hurt. Maybe some training on options between "shoot a guy" and "get beat" is necessary?
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
Probably because if a cop shoots a guy, you have very good reason that he needing shootin.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
Probably because if a cop shoots a guy, you have very good reason that he needing shootin.
The word "probably" in your comment indicates that there should probably be at least a brief inquiry, right? We're not so inurned to violence that we consider police killing citizens as unworthy of investigation?
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Holy strawman argument, Batman!
Try this; only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, instead of reacting to a dangerous situation as his training and instinct dictated, and wound up losing his gun and getting beat with it.
Maybe. Keep in mind where nearly all of the information in this case is coming from: the police union.
Luckily, he's not dead, or even seriously hurt. Maybe some training on options between "shoot a guy" and "get beat" is necessary?
I don't know, but I think if you look across the pond, you'll find plenty of cops without guns that handle business.
Obviously there are times when a police officer needs to use lethal force. Preventing his own incapacitation is one of those times. For decades, cops have been trained to shoot when anybody goes for their gun, because having an armed suspect, and a wounded or dead cop is bad.
So, given what we know, I'm inclined to believe that for whatever reason, the cop hesitated, and lost control of the situation. that happens, they're humans, and luckily there wasn't a worse outcome than some stiches. The union, being a union, is going to spin this as "he was so scared of the big mean media he didn't shoot the guy," even if that wasn't true. Of course, why does anybody hesitate for a split second? It'll be true enough if the cop wants it to be true, because that's how memory works.
Of course, this would be a very different situation from other famous police shootings. If he had shot the suspect, it would have been in the chest, the guy would have been out of his car, he's an adult (not a child), he was at large (not in custody), and not powerless.
Haha yeah right. Obviously this guy got his buddy to beat him up, faked that an african american did it just to save some face for officers all over the states. Betcha he's sitting on a nice big compensation payment for his trouble.
Just kidding.
This whole issue about blacks vs. The police is getting a bit crazy. The media seems to be exacerbating the problems tenfold. I don't blame the guy for thinking twice, but surely he could have tazed him? Mace? Nightstick? Hell even shoot the guy in the arm or leg or something. Nobody loses their mind on media over neutralizing shots, it's when the officer blatantly killed a man that was A) not dangerous or B) easily handled in a different fashion. In reality, this man should definitely not have shot to kill, but still should have defended himself. The fact that all this animosity exists is saddening. In my opinion, it's more to do with wealth inequality than anything else, which is rampant in the states. Take from the rich, give to the poor and stability will be regained as the lower class has little to no incentive towards crime. I think race plays a side role and that this is a larger problem, the media just wants to get inflammatory responses from people by playing the race card hard and focusing on it. That pays the bills if youre a news corporation, and distracts the public from the fact that only 1% of the states runs the whole bloody show.
I wish everyone could feel safe and work together towards a better humankind. We could do so much more than we are now. I want to see my species adventure into space, dammit!
Disgraceful that people just stood by and watched this guy get the crap beaten out of him. Clearly there's no good samaritans in that area...
It also makes me really kinda angry that people vilify cops who were just doing their job and had to make a life or death decision. I appreciate that not all cops who shoot a suspect are doing the right thing. But they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, generally speaking.
In my opinion, un armed does not mean not dangerous. Its just less lethal. Considering the restraint that police officers have, as evidence by this video, and what they go through every day where they put their lives and bodies on the line, when they do make the choice of pulling a gun I have to support them. Yes some times police officers and gun owners (since I have a feeling that civilian gun ownership is going to be coming up some time in this topic) do make mistakes, yes there are arse-wipes who carry a badge, then there are the vast majority of actual responsible officers and gun owners who are protecting themselves and others with a tool that is dangerous. Dangerous not at one end but at both ends of the barrel, because as soon as some one pulls that trigger and makes a kill, their life is going to be one of scrutiny in this society.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Hell even shoot the guy in the arm or leg or something. Nobody loses their mind on media over neutralizing shots, it's when the officer blatantly killed a man that was A) not dangerous or B) easily handled in a different fashion.
Real police work isn't an action movie. There are no "neutralizing shots." Most cops never shoot their guns in anger, so they rely on their basic training, which is to shoot for the center of mass.
There's really no other way to handle it. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Hell even shoot the guy in the arm or leg or something. Nobody loses their mind on media over neutralizing shots, it's when the officer blatantly killed a man that was A) not dangerous or B) easily handled in a different fashion.
Real police work isn't an action movie. There are no "neutralizing shots." Most cops never shoot their guns in anger, so they rely on their basic training, which is to shoot for the center of mass.
There's really no other way to handle it. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.
Indeed. I took my CPL training from a retired Detroit cop. He made it plain that a handgun is only drawn as a last resort, and if it is drawn, you have made the conscious decision to take a life. Otherwise it stays in the holster.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well they are cops, who are just those who couldnt get into college and have power complexes, who they deserve to die right? RIGHT?
Actually im pretty sure cops need to have some sort of degree to get hired.
At least in CAIIRc.
i could be wrong.
As to the media. i see why the cops feel the need to walk on egg shells. in the right or wrong shooting some one armed not armed with 4 arms. it really doesn't matter. there will be people out making a fething ruckus causing more issues and ultimately ending the officers carrier weather or not they deserve it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well they are cops, who are just those who couldnt get into college and have power complexes, who they deserve to die right? RIGHT?
Actually im pretty sure cops need to have some sort of degree to get hired.
At least in CAIIRc.
i could be wrong.
As to the media. i see why the cops feel the need to walk on egg shells. in the right or wrong shooting some one armed not armed with 4 arms. it really doesn't matter. there will be people out making a fething ruckus causing more issues and ultimately ending the officers carrier weather or not they deserve it.
That is what I hear, that cops are just the bullies of highschool who just wanted to continue bullying.
Okay, i concede the neutralizing shot thing. Probably far too difficult in the heat of the moment. Honestly its probably video games more than hollywood that made me think that was valid.
But why not taze him or pull out the mace?
Just to be clear, i think it's awful this man went through this. No one should have to feel afraid to defend themselves.
In canada, it's a few months of training and a physical test to be an RCMP officer, and i think more to be a city policeman. Their physical test is much harder also I believe.
That is what I hear, that cops are just the bullies of highschool who just wanted to continue bullying.
No i mean they HAVE to have at least a collage degree to be a cop.
edit@ Ancient: Tazers are not perfect and mace is unpredictable edit:err both are unpredictable and doesn't always stop the bad guys compared to just dead. BUT i think it should be an option for most police in specific areas where it is reasonable.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
Probably because if a cop shoots a guy, you have very good reason that he needing shootin.
Or the target was an unarmed 12 year old boy. Or an unarmed 14 year old boy who took 7 to the back.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
Probably because if a cop shoots a guy, you have very good reason that he needing shootin.
Or the target was an unarmed 12 year old boy. Or an unarmed 14 year old boy who took 7 to the back.
the 12 year old one that had a replica toy gun with no orange safety tip?
dont recall the 14 year old one.
Did new info come to light on those?
Seriously cant use hindsight to demonize people since there is no way to have known.
Polonius wrote: So... only because of the intense media coverage of police usage of force did the cop stop to think, "Maybe I shouldn't shoot and kill this unarmed person?"
Obviously this is a bad situation, although the article seems to indicate that the cop should completely recover (he was treated and released). I mean, call me names, but I'm not sure having a cop get beat up is worse than somebody dying. I can't imagine life is going to be pleasant for the guy that did this, so justice will be served.
And that's kind of the point of the movement: for all the talk of "walking on eggshells," the suspect here will almost certainly be tried, convicted, and spend substantial time in prison. When cops shoot people, there is very little chance of criminal proceedings.
These are pretty much my thoughts exactly.
And if media frenzy was enough to overcome this cop's fear of of the suspect and a need to defend himself, that speaks more to me that the need to employ lethal force was perhaps questionable in the first place.
As to the media. i see why the cops feel the need to walk on egg shells. in the right or wrong shooting some one armed not armed with 4 arms. it really doesn't matter. there will be people out making a fething ruckus causing more issues and ultimately ending the officers carrier weather or not they deserve it.
I'm a manager in the Federal Government. Every interaction I have with an employee has to be careful, because anything I say or do could lead to accusations of discrimination by that employee, or another. In many ways, I spend time "walking on eggshells." And you know what? Nowhere in my job description is the phrase "Expected to use lethal force when necessary."
Call me an idealist, but I think that we want people tasked with the decision of when to shoot and likely kill people in an altercation to be mindful, to be worried about the consequences. Because, and again, call me an idealist or a liberal or what have you, I think that killing people is an absolute last resort. That preventing deaths, not causing them, is the job of police. That, when the chips are down, being a first responder means putting yourself more at risk to protect people. And that even people that by policy could be killed don't always need to be. And that its a reasonably good thing.
Not even seriously hurt? I wouldn't call 17 staples in the head a minor injury. That's pretty severe, pistol whippings have killed people from the blunt force trauma of the metal cracking the skull and/or swelling of the brain which can occur later.
The officer is very lucky to be alive and I'm glad they charged that assailant with attempted murder.
Not even seriously hurt? I wouldn't call 17 staples in the head a minor injury. That's pretty severe, pistol whippings have killed people from the blunt force trauma of the metal cracking the skull and/or swelling of the brain which can occur later.
The officer is very lucky to be alive and I'm glad they charged that assailant with attempted murder.
He's a police officer and was treated and released. I don't know an ER in the country that doesn't double check everything for another first responder. Head wounds bleed freely, and stitches promote healing. I wouldn't want to go through what the guy went through, but the story itself said he wasn't admitted to the hospital and will recover fully. that's not a very serious injury.
And I think hitting a person with a gun, instead of shooting them with the gun, is the opposite of attempted murder. It's very much "I don't want to kill you." I"m sure he'll be charged fully and get what's due. The problem isn't what he's charged with, it's that he'll be getting a lousy plea deal and a high sentence.
As to the media. i see why the cops feel the need to walk on egg shells. in the right or wrong shooting some one armed not armed with 4 arms. it really doesn't matter. there will be people out making a fething ruckus causing more issues and ultimately ending the officers carrier weather or not they deserve it.
I'm a manager in the Federal Government. Every interaction I have with an employee has to be careful, because anything I say or do could lead to accusations of discrimination by that employee, or another. In many ways, I spend time "walking on eggshells." And you know what? Nowhere in my job description is the phrase "Expected to use lethal force when necessary."
Call me an idealist, but I think that we want people tasked with the decision of when to shoot and likely kill people in an altercation to be mindful, to be worried about the consequences. Because, and again, call me an idealist or a liberal or what have you, I think that killing people is an absolute last resort. That preventing deaths, not causing them, is the job of police. That, when the chips are down, being a first responder means putting yourself more at risk to protect people. And that even people that by policy could be killed don't always need to be. And that its a reasonably good thing.
While i agree. that they really do need to think VERY hard and fast about the use of lethal force. i dont think it should be BECAUSE of the threat of a media frenzy. Idealy the media wont blow gak up and miss report things to rile up the public but thats what they do for ratings now. and its a damn shame.
Not even seriously hurt? I wouldn't call 17 staples in the head a minor injury. That's pretty severe, pistol whippings have killed people from the blunt force trauma of the metal cracking the skull and/or swelling of the brain which can occur later.
The officer is very lucky to be alive and I'm glad they charged that assailant with attempted murder.
He's a police officer and was treated and released. I don't know an ER in the country that doesn't double check everything for another first responder. Head wounds bleed freely, and stitches promote healing. I wouldn't want to go through what the guy went through, but the story itself said he wasn't admitted to the hospital and will recover fully. that's not a very serious injury.
And I think hitting a person with a gun, instead of shooting them with the gun, is the opposite of attempted murder. It's very much "I don't want to kill you." I"m sure he'll be charged fully and get what's due. The problem isn't what he's charged with, it's that he'll be getting a lousy plea deal and a high sentence.
First off I want to state that I agree that cops have been utilizing lethal force on way to many calls when they don't have to. In Afghanistan, An active war zone, our ROE's were very strict and we could only shoot when fired upon or if they were pointing something like an RPG/RPK at us. SO why are cops allowed a lesser ROE on US Soil?
But with that said, if a cop pulls you over, orders you back into the car and then you proceed to approach in a hostile manner, you have sacrificed your rights as a non combatant and have escalated the situation to a confrontation. In this situation the cop should have drawn his side arm and ordered the man to the ground. If your goal is to beat up a cop you deserve to be shot. This isn't a bar fight, this isnt some civies beating each other up, this is a representative of the state/federal government and you have threatened them.
Also to whichever person said something along the lines of "They couldn't get into college and are just bullies" your both ignorant and wrong. I don't know how many times I faced that same stereotype when I was in the military. "your only in the Marines because you weren't smart enough for college". I scored in the 1300s on the old SATs and was accepted to a bunch of universities, I made the decision to serve my nation, as a lot of these guys made the decision to serve their states or federal government in a law capacity.
Its people like you that undermine the system when you think that civil servants only do what they are doing because they aren't as smart as you.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well they are cops, who are just those who couldnt get into college and have power complexes, who they deserve to die right? RIGHT?
Actually im pretty sure cops need to have some sort of degree to get hired.
At least in CAIIRc.
i could be wrong.
As to the media. i see why the cops feel the need to walk on egg shells. in the right or wrong shooting some one armed not armed with 4 arms. it really doesn't matter. there will be people out making a fething ruckus causing more issues and ultimately ending the officers carrier weather or not they deserve it.
That is what I hear, that cops are just the bullies of highschool who just wanted to continue bullying.
thats more of a myth perpetrated by people who dont like that cops caught them breaking laws.
if there is any predominant complex I have noticed in cops it is a tendency to masochism due to the sheer amount of abuse they have to deal with every day.
the guy at the DMV/hospital/school/ect gets to just ignore you and leave if you are being aggressive, violent, or abusive.
cops have to deal pretty much exclusively with people who are doing this, take it, and not do anything about it besides write a ticket or do the paper work to arrest someone (or risk significant harm or death in a violent arrest OFC)
on top of that, most cops I know keep it secret as much as they can, mostly because there is a significant social stigma against being a cop (ie the stigma that you are just a bully with powerlust) and many people will not be pals with them based on their profession alone. Its also not the safest thing to have people know at times unfortunately.
its just odd, our culture seems to glamorize thugs and demonize cops right now.
not that there cannot be thugs like robin hood and cops like samuel jacksons character from training day, but both would be exceptions not the rule.
Polonius wrote: He's a police officer and was treated and released.
Being a police officer isn't a factor in the seriousness of the injury. As for being treated and released, a broken arm qualifies if you go in, get an x-ray, and then the doctor sets the arm and puts a cast on it. Please don't be so dismissive about injuries because of phrasing.
If you are released the same day your injury isn't that severe. If they let you go with a broken arm then it wasn't an awful break that would ruin your career and end your ability to use that hand. You are right that it doesn't have anything to do with career but it does have to do with what the hospital thinks. I've seen enough injuries that if they let you go then it isn't the worst that can happen. I knew a guy (a cop!) that was shot in the head. He didn't go home the same day. I'm sure he would trade a broken arm or stitches for, you know, being shot in the head.
its just odd, our culture seems to glamorize thugs and demonize cops right now.
not that there cannot be thugs like robin hood and cops like samuel jacksons character from training day, but both would be exceptions not the rule.
Regarding the bolded...I don't know. Maybe its a regional thing. I have lived a good number of years now, and most cops I have ever had to deal with have been DBs, plain and simple. Especially in Maryland. Specific shout-out to the Howard County (MD) Police Dept and the Maryland State Troopers.
P.S. Its Denzel Washington. Samuel L. Jackson was not in the film Training Day.
Polonius wrote: He's a police officer and was treated and released.
Being a police officer isn't a factor in the seriousness of the injury. As for being treated and released, a broken arm qualifies if you go in, get an x-ray, and then the doctor sets the arm and puts a cast on it. Please don't be so dismissive about injuries because of phrasing.
I don't think I'm being dismissive, and my reaction is not because of phrasing. "Serious injury" is usually defined as having a higher threshold, often involving a longer hospital stay or a loss of functioning extending for weeks.
And I mentioned that he was a cop because in my experience they get very good health care, making it unlikely that they wouldn't rule out other injuries.
its just odd, our culture seems to glamorize thugs and demonize cops right now.
not that there cannot be thugs like robin hood and cops like samuel jacksons character from training day, but both would be exceptions not the rule.
Regarding the bolded...I don't know. Maybe its a regional thing. I have lived a good number of years now, and most cops I have ever had to deal with have been DBs, plain and simple. Especially in Maryland. Specific shout-out to the Howard County (MD) Police Dept and the Maryland State Troopers.
And I mentioned that he was a cop because in my experience they get very good health care, making it unlikely that they wouldn't rule out other injuries.
I find the claim that someone would get better treatment at a hospital than another based on their occupation troubling.
its just odd, our culture seems to glamorize thugs and demonize cops right now.
not that there cannot be thugs like robin hood and cops like samuel jacksons character from training day, but both would be exceptions not the rule.
Regarding the bolded...I don't know. Maybe its a regional thing. I have lived a good number of years now, and most cops I have ever had to deal with have been DBs, plain and simple. Especially in Maryland. Specific shout-out to the Howard County (MD) Police Dept and the Maryland State Troopers.
P.S. Its Denzel Washington. Samuel L. Jackson was not in the film Training Day.
and by the same token, I have run into my fair share of great cops. I had a cop offer to help me find my dog when she slipped her leash. I had a neighbor who was a Cop and him and his wife would routinely check on my wife when I was either deployed or out on long training exercises. The list goes on and on. Yeah everyone has a different view of the police but keep in mind these guys have to deal with people every single day who hate them. I don't think anyone who has ever been pulled over for speeding or running a light has ever been polite and cordial to the cop.
Polonius wrote: He's a police officer and was treated and released.
Being a police officer isn't a factor in the seriousness of the injury. As for being treated and released, a broken arm qualifies if you go in, get an x-ray, and then the doctor sets the arm and puts a cast on it. Please don't be so dismissive about injuries because of phrasing.
I don't think I'm being dismissive, and my reaction is not because of phrasing. "Serious injury" is usually defined as having a higher threshold, often involving a longer hospital stay or a loss of functioning extending for weeks.
And I mentioned that he was a cop because in my experience they get very good health care, making it unlikely that they wouldn't rule out other injuries.
concussions are notoriously hard to diagnose and im a bit shocked they let him leave that day, usually the hospitals want to keep them for 24 hours for observation at the least. But regardless of the severity of the injury the fact remains that he not only took a side arm from a police officer, but he also struck him with intent to injure. He might not get attempted murder but you can bet he will get assault and battery with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest, and a bunch of other minor things, he will probably get 20-30 years.
And I mentioned that he was a cop because in my experience they get very good health care, making it unlikely that they wouldn't rule out other injuries.
I find the claim that someone would get better treatment at a hospital than another based on their occupation troubling.
He might have been referring to the Health care plan that most Police Departments offer. meaning that he would get a good doctor and not the bare minimum because of bad insurance.
And I mentioned that he was a cop because in my experience they get very good health care, making it unlikely that they wouldn't rule out other injuries.
I find the claim that someone would get better treatment at a hospital than another based on their occupation troubling.
Well, First Responders tend to share a bit of a bond, and ER staff work with them a lot. (my sister-in-law is an ER nurse that used to be an EMT, and many techs are former Paramedics). Also, cops have good health insurance. An ER in Alabama (a state with 15% of people without health insurace) is keenly aware of thems that can pay.
It's possible that the cop got the same high quality care everybody gets. I'd wager that, at a minimum, the cop got great care.
A Birmingham police officer was assaulted in eastern Birmingham this morning when he pulled over a suspect for questioning.
Police say the robbery detective, a six-year-veteran of the force, stopped a maroon 2012 GMC Yukon in the 9100 block of Parkway East about 11:05 a.m. near the Roebuck Plaza. He approached the vehicle, and told the suspect to stay in the SUV while he waited for a marked unit for backup.
The driver got out of the vehicle despite the officer's demands, and began to question the detective about why he was being stopped. A tussle followed and the suspect assaulted the detective. Sources say the officer was pistol-whipped, but Lt. Theophilus Smith said he couldn't confirm that report.
The detective issued a plea for all available help over the police radio at 11:15 a.m. He detective was taken to UAB Hospital with injuries to the head. Police blocked off downtown intersections to make way for the detective's arrival via ambulance.
Smith said at 1 p.m. that the detective had been evaluated, was awake and visiting with his family. He is expected to make a full recovery, Smith said. He was admitted to the hospital, and is listed in stable condition.
Birmingham Police Officer Assaulted In Eastern Birmingham Lt. Theophilus Smith gives an update on a Birmingham Police officer who was assaulted in eastern Birmingham Friday shortly before noon. Police chased the SUV to a neighborhood about one mile away and set up a perimeter. Two suspects were taken into custody near Shady Wood Lane and Shady Wood Drive.
Police set up a perimeter and put nearby W.J. Christian School on lockdown. The lockdown has since been lifted.
Dozens of officers and U.S Marshals were on the scene. Tracking dogs were brought in to help search for the remaining suspect, who remains at large.
The suspects are being questioned at police headquarters. Authorities are expected to pursue attempted murder charges against the suspects.
"This incident underscores the danger that our officers and others experience everyday. I think about the recent murders of the Memphis and Shreveport police officers and recognize we too could have lost an officer today,'' Birmingham police Chief A.C. Roper told AL.com. "We ask the community to keep this officer and his family in your thoughts and prayers.
Updated to indicate the officer was not shot. Updated at 1:10 p.m. to add more information from police.
This says that the cop was admitted. It also pointed out: "He detective was taken to UAB Hospital with injuries to the head. Police blocked off downtown intersections to make way for the detective's arrival via ambulance."
So is this proof that because the Officer survived that all those shoot or die split second decisions we choose to believe are always the case are not as accurate as we want to think?
Did the suspect not kill the Officer because he too must "walk on egg shells," due to media scrutiny?
***Not entirely serious to be honest.***
However, with the gun apparently being the only defence Officers seem to be capable of in a zero standards police force it is entirely reasonable to assume that shooting is their only ability to enforce. Mayhaps it is time for police forces to invest in some better equipment that isn't surplus military. Oh, and training, much better training. For their safety and our safety. Its like some NCO gave a bunch of buck privates weapons and told them to go "soldier" somewhere over there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It is useful, that is how people think of cops, thats how ALOT of people see cops. Espcially anti-coppers
So are you saying you agree with it? And if you don't agree with it, why do you keep repeating it without any caveats or qualifications, like it's just a statement of fact?
1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.
2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Hell even shoot the guy in the arm or leg or something. Nobody loses their mind on media over neutralizing shots, it's when the officer blatantly killed a man that was A) not dangerous or B) easily handled in a different fashion.
Real police work isn't an action movie. There are no "neutralizing shots." Most cops never shoot their guns in anger, so they rely on their basic training, which is to shoot for the center of mass.
There's really no other way to handle it. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.
Not to mention when looking at potential prosecution or defending against civil charges, anything other than shooting to kill is problematic. From a self-defense perspective, you're generally only shooting if you have a reasonable fear for imminent death or grievous bodily injury for yourself or someone else. If you have time to fire a warning shot or anything else other than shooting to kill, then it seems like maybe your use of force wasn't reasonable anymore, because the danger wasn't as imminent.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
I think alot of the public believes that the de facto mission of police departments is to "survey and arrest" rather than to "protect and serve".
Polonius wrote: Call me an idealist, but I think that we want people tasked with the decision of when to shoot and likely kill people in an altercation to be mindful, to be worried about the consequences. Because, and again, call me an idealist or a liberal or what have you, I think that killing people is an absolute last resort. That preventing deaths, not causing them, is the job of police. That, when the chips are down, being a first responder means putting yourself more at risk to protect people. And that even people that by policy could be killed don't always need to be. And that its a reasonably good thing.
Perhaps you didn't read the thread title. This is no place for your reasonable arguments.
1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.
2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
I disagree with your first point. I've been in situations where it was literally life or death and the number of thoughts that can spool at a time like that can be pretty high.
Polonius wrote: Call me an idealist, but I think that we want people tasked with the decision of when to shoot and likely kill people in an altercation to be mindful, to be worried about the consequences. Because, and again, call me an idealist or a liberal or what have you, I think that killing people is an absolute last resort. That preventing deaths, not causing them, is the job of police. That, when the chips are down, being a first responder means putting yourself more at risk to protect people. And that even people that by policy could be killed don't always need to be. And that its a reasonably good thing.
Perhaps you didn't read the thread title. This is no place for your reasonable arguments.
I think it's rather obvious that the police union is playing the "poor cop can't do his job because people are actually paying attention to what we do now" card.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I think it's rather obvious that the police union is playing the "poor cop can't do his job because people are actually paying attention to what we do now" card.
B-b-but police unions are the good ones! They're not jack-booted thugs like the rest.
Here's a few questions I honestly don't know the answer to. Why was the cop beaten instead of shot? Did the perp simply not want to shoot? Or did the magazine get separated from the gun and the perp was unable to shoot and chose to beat instead?
If someone's video shows the perp pulling the trigger then an attempted murder charge may well stick even if the gun had no bullets.
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Breotan wrote: If someone's video shows the perp pulling the trigger then an attempted murder charge may well stick even if the gun had no bullets.
I don't know what the legal requirements in that venue are for attempted murder but in my lay opinion, just beating someone in the head with a metal object should qualify for attempted murder.
1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.
2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
#3 specifically: The first "action" was Ferguson where Michael Brown was shot to death by a cop. Why was he shot? because he attacked a police officer, what has followed since then is over 1 year of civil unrest, riots and looting. So your very argument is flawed from the start. Are their other cases where the police did act inappropriately? yep, but Michael Brown was the catalyst and the world is a better place without that thug
d-usa wrote: Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...
What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.
It's the officer's mistake. He was assaulted, asked the attacker to back off, yet he decided to press on the assault. At that point, shooting was a totally viable and the best option at that point.
Yes, cross that "Blame the victim!" card off, but objectively, the officer made the bad all here. There undoubtedly is a reason for him behaving that way and with media and black racists all over the former in the last few weeks, police offiers sure are under a lot of pressure. If you let that pressure get under your skin, though, forcing you to behave wrongly in a textbook situation, you need to decide whether you can keep up or back down.
d-usa wrote: Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...
What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?
d-usa wrote: Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...
What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.
Oh, so you're just trying to appropriate their culture now.
Let it go, you're never not going to do something offensive.
Good in. I see what you did there.
I seriousnous, though, I think the whole controversy over the word is ridiculous, since our political leaders, up to Obama uses the word to designate these punks who go about looting, robbing and doing other unsocial acts. Saying the " n word" in place of the real thing is actually something I never understood either, since all that's being done is to eliminate some nouns and consenants in designating either a slur or the Spanish word for Black. It's the hate behind it and not the word itself that has the power.
I'm with Lenny Bruce on the whole thing.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Police aren't hand to hand combat experts. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but they aren't trained to ignore the weapons they were given for this exact reason, and brawl with a guy. Besides, while guns are by no means harmless, you don't have to aim to kill to stop an attacker. Getting shot in an arm or leg can change the attacker's mind, and allows them to go to a hospital to be patched up before going behind bars.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?
He was being sarcastic, as well as has been in front line combat.
1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.
2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Police aren't hand to hand combat experts. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but they aren't trained to ignore the weapons they were given for this exact reason, and brawl with a guy. Besides, while guns are by no means harmless, you don't have to aim to kill to stop an attacker. Getting shot in an arm or leg can change the attacker's mind, and allows them to go to a hospital to be patched up before going behind bars.
They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.
Frazzled wrote: They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.
He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...
Frazzled wrote: They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.
He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...
Depending on what you're wearing, you could fit some of that stuff in with plain clothes, but I don't think they would be able to have the full set of gear with them. I'm not sure though, I don't claim to know this stuff for a fact, it's just my guess.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.
Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?
It's not always safe to assume that people have no experience but I've been in far more dangerous situations with people throwing rocks and molotovs at me and I never operated outside our ROE. IDF ROEs don't define those threats as sacana chaim (a threat to life) so we wouldn't shoot in those situations. An unarmed man definitely doesn't fit the bill. For those cases we use less than lethal force and *gasp* practice hand to hand fighting and weapon retention.
Frazzled wrote: They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.
He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...
A plain clothes officer would most likely not have had all of that on hand.
This. It's like when you say the French are smelly chainsmokers who eat nothing but brie and baguette. Insensitive? Possibly. Offensive? Definitely. False? I'll have to abstain from judgment at this time. Racist? Not a chance.
However, when folks say that *WHITE* cops are always the problem then that's approaching that line...
Frazzled wrote: They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.
He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...
Breotan wrote: I guess we're starting to see the consequences of all this media scrutiny of the police. In some cases you say rightfully that such scrutiny is deserved. Still, in other cases it leads to bad consequences. The question is, are these consequences truly unintended?
But if Buzzfeed et al don't get their clickbait, how will people know when to get offended?
Breotan wrote: I guess we're starting to see the consequences of all this media scrutiny of the police. In some cases you say rightfully that such scrutiny is deserved. Still, in other cases it leads to bad consequences. The question is, are these consequences truly unintended?
But if Buzzfeed et al don't get their clickbait, how will people know when to get offended?
Like people not getting offended about the Dukes of Hazard General Lee for decades until they were told to be?
That's an interesting question, as pointed out by another user a degree of some kind is required to police in at least some states, will these states see a lower recruitment rate as people who pay attention to news are scared off? Or will their rates remain pretty steady
motyak wrote: That's an interesting question, as pointed out by another user a degree of some kind is required to police in at least some states, will these states see a lower recruitment rate as people who pay attention to news are scared off? Or will their rates remain pretty steady
Various stories are pointing out that recruitment numbers have been dropping. Even rabid anti-police websites.
motyak wrote: That's an interesting question, as pointed out by another user a degree of some kind is required to police in at least some states, will these states see a lower recruitment rate as people who pay attention to news are scared off? Or will their rates remain pretty steady
A severe majority of places do not require college education. They usually have some combo of the following:
*Successfully completed at least 60 semester hours of college credit — essentially the equivalent of two years of higher education with coursework in any subject matter. Credits from any accredited college or university will be accepted; or
*Served in the Armed Forces of the United States, including the Organized Reserves and National Guard, for at least three years on active duty and, if separated from the military, have received an honorable discharge; or
*Have served at least five years in a full-duty status with a full-service police department in a municipality or a state within the United States, and have resigned or retired in good standing.
*One year full-time post law enforcement academy experience with a recognized local, state or federal law enforcement agency.
None require a 4 year degree (I can't find one in DC, MD or VA which does), and most times if you want to be an officer, you can be 19-20, high school and enter the academy and be on the street by time you are 21.
motyak wrote: That's an interesting question, as pointed out by another user a degree of some kind is required to police in at least some states, will these states see a lower recruitment rate as people who pay attention to news are scared off? Or will their rates remain pretty steady
A severe majority of places do not require college education. They usually have some combo of the following:
*Successfully completed at least 60 semester hours of college credit — essentially the equivalent of two years of higher education with coursework in any subject matter. Credits from any accredited college or university will be accepted; or
*Served in the Armed Forces of the United States, including the Organized Reserves and National Guard, for at least three years on active duty and, if separated from the military, have received an honorable discharge; or
*Have served at least five years in a full-duty status with a full-service police department in a municipality or a state within the United States, and have resigned or retired in good standing.
*One year full-time post law enforcement academy experience with a recognized local, state or federal law enforcement agency.
None require a 4 year degree (I can't find one in DC, MD or VA which does), and most times if you want to be an officer, you can be 19-20, high school and enter the academy and be on the street by time you are 21.
Generally 60 credit hours of college earns you an associates degree
I think that those prereqs are absolutely fine for being a police officer. Its just been the last 20-30 years where everyone feels if you don't have a college degree you are useless....and usually this forces useless people into college where they barely get by on easy degree programs...that way they can lord it over everyone else, regardless of how useless they are as a human being
motyak wrote: And he would have stayed off topic too, if it weren't for those meddling mods.
Come on guys
My apologies.
On topic, why aren't more people worried that your police forces are going to have a brain drain if this keeps up?
(Has this already happened?)
Brain drain? Before making snarky comments I'll jjust rely on fundamental economic theory. If there is a shortage then salaries will have to rise until sufficient positions are filled.
Alternatively we could just have (more)posses. I've got the whisky. Who's got the rope?
How was that comment snarky? It seems legitimate to believe that it might be off putting to someone considering a career in law enforcement to not want to do it, especially in light of some of the comments on this thread and others that say cops should be happy to get killed or their heads beat in before they use lethal force to protect themselves.
A profession that the news services, as well as the obama administration, seem determined to crucify the members of on a weekly basis, whether they are in the right or not, will end up losing all the good people
Relapse wrote: How was that comment snarky? It seems legitimate to believe that it might be off putting to someone considering a career in law enforcement to not want to do it, especially in light of some of the comments on this thread and others that say cops should be happy to get killed or their heads beat in before they use lethal force to protect themselves.
A profession that the news services, as well as the obama administration, seem determined to crucify the members of on a weekly basis, whether they are in the right or not, will end up losing all the good people
The same thing was said though about enlistments during the recent war on terror. I know for a fact that the USMC had a waiting list for recruits, even during the troop surge. I would be more concerned with how the average civvie is now going to view the police and react accordingly. This guy got beat up by some random thug because he didn't want to kill the guy. The civvies watched and took pictures and made snarky comments online about it. You might not like the police, hell you can even hate them if you really want to, but your supposed to respect them. The police have lost respect and now everyone thinks they can question cops and then scream abuse or mistreatment when the cops do their jobs. its a slippery slope to be sure.
To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
Relapse wrote: How was that comment snarky? It seems legitimate to believe that it might be off putting to someone considering a career in law enforcement to not want to do it, especially in light of some of the comments on this thread and others that say cops should be happy to get killed or their heads beat in before they use lethal force to protect themselves. A profession that the news services, as well as the obama administration, seem determined to crucify the members of on a weekly basis, whether they are in the right or not, will end up losing all the good people
Sorry, I meant before I make snarky comments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
We had a saying in the Marine Corps, "you might not respect the man but you sure as hell better respect the rank" Don't get me wrong, that only went so far. I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell someone with a higher rank exactly what kind of a Feth Nut they were, but I couldn't because they held a higher rank. The same should apply in the civilian world to an extent. Treat cops with respect simply because they are cops. If hes a dirt bag? report him. No point going to jail because you feel like being the tough guy, you will lose 99% of the time.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
We had a saying in the Marine Corps, "you might not respect the man but you sure as hell better respect the rank" Don't get me wrong, that only went so far. I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell someone with a higher rank exactly what kind of a Feth Nut they were, but I couldn't because they held a higher rank. The same should apply in the civilian world to an extent. Treat cops with respect simply because they are cops. If hes a dirt bag? report him. No point going to jail because you feel like being the tough guy, you will lose 99% of the time.
The problem is twofold. First, the concept that a civilian policeman somehow "outranks" a non-police civilian is an issue many have a problem with, civilian life is not the military.
Second, reporting almost never goes anywhere for the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and in many cases can result in further harassment or deep legal issues. In many cases, like civil forfeiture, where a cop can just take anything they want and you have to sue them to prove it wasn't used for illegal purposes, the process is quite simply beyond the means of many people.
So the question might be what can be done so we don't witness a reverse refining process where all the gold is cooked off and what we are left with for cops are the dross.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
We had a saying in the Marine Corps, "you might not respect the man but you sure as hell better respect the rank" Don't get me wrong, that only went so far. I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell someone with a higher rank exactly what kind of a Feth Nut they were, but I couldn't because they held a higher rank. The same should apply in the civilian world to an extent. Treat cops with respect simply because they are cops. If hes a dirt bag? report him. No point going to jail because you feel like being the tough guy, you will lose 99% of the time.
A cop is a CIVILIAN. He doesn't outrank any other civilian. And, as others have said, reporting goes nowhere because of the "thin blue line" of cop buddies and useful idiots protecting cops for doing things that would land you and I in prison for 20+, and the idiotic notion that "unless you do the job of law enforcement you can't understand what they go through."
Small question, just to go back to the original article:
I know that different police departments have different use of force guidelines, and that from what I can tell from the article the guy that attacked the cop was unarmed and didn't have any indications that he had any weapon of any kind.
So from what we know is that the officer was faced with the following situation: a guy that was angry and kept on asking "what did you pull me over for" while walking towards him who was unarmed. Is that by itself justification for deadly force?
d-usa wrote: Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...
What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.
d-usa wrote: Small question, just to go back to the original article:
I know that different police departments have different use of force guidelines, and that from what I can tell from the article the guy that attacked the cop was unarmed and didn't have any indications that he had any weapon of any kind.
So from what we know is that the officer was faced with the following situation: a guy that was angry and kept on asking "what did you pull me over for" while walking towards him who was unarmed. Is that by itself justification for deadly force?
It is entirely dependent on the state I guess, stand your ground laws, etc... Fists are a deadly weapon. You don't have to be "armed" to pose a serious threat to someone.
In my opinion, there is a ton of grey area in the question, and how it could be answered.
d-usa wrote: Small question, just to go back to the original article:
I know that different police departments have different use of force guidelines, and that from what I can tell from the article the guy that attacked the cop was unarmed and didn't have any indications that he had any weapon of any kind.
So from what we know is that the officer was faced with the following situation: a guy that was angry and kept on asking "what did you pull me over for" while walking towards him who was unarmed. Is that by itself justification for deadly force?
If it was someone Brown's size, I'd say it was. That being said, we see that anything can happen, even with people who are "unarmed", so I guess it would ride on what the training of that department is coupled with how the officer reads the situation. The scenario you put forward could be played out on the part of the suspect in several different ways.
Breotan wrote: If someone's video shows the perp pulling the trigger then an attempted murder charge may well stick even if the gun had no bullets.
I don't know what the legal requirements in that venue are for attempted murder but in my lay opinion, just beating someone in the head with a metal object should qualify for attempted murder.
The charge is supposed to be based on intent not only on mechanism.
If you have got a gun and you want to kill someone you probably try to shoot them instead of hit them on the head.
Equally you could be accused of attempted murder if you wanted to kill a diabetic and gave him a can of normal Coke you had emptied and filled with Diet Coke.
3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.
#3 specifically: The first "action" was Ferguson where Michael Brown was shot to death by a cop. Why was he shot? because he attacked a police officer, what has followed since then is over 1 year of civil unrest, riots and looting. So your very argument is flawed from the start. Are their other cases where the police did act inappropriately? yep, but Michael Brown was the catalyst and the world is a better place without that thug
Leaving aside general racism, the police have a significant history of excessive attacks on people, starting with Rodney King in 1991 if not earlier. Rodney King was probably the first one that made big news due to it being filmed on video by a passer by. It wasn't until the late 20th century that video cameras started to get cheap and portable enough for them to become widespread outside professionals. Nowadays with smartphones nearly everyone has the capability to film an incident and post it to social media immediately, and more of these kind of incidents are being publicised. Even if the Michael Brown case had never happened, something else would have come along.
Relapse wrote: How was that comment snarky? It seems legitimate to believe that it might be off putting to someone considering a career in law enforcement to not want to do it, especially in light of some of the comments on this thread and others that say cops should be happy to get killed or their heads beat in before they use lethal force to protect themselves.
A profession that the news services, as well as the obama administration, seem determined to crucify the members of on a weekly basis, whether they are in the right or not, will end up losing all the good people
The purpose of society is not to be violent and racist and then give police free reign of violence. Perhaps there need to be changes on bothe sides of the equation.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
We had a saying in the Marine Corps, "you might not respect the man but you sure as hell better respect the rank" Don't get me wrong, that only went so far. I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell someone with a higher rank exactly what kind of a Feth Nut they were, but I couldn't because they held a higher rank. The same should apply in the civilian world to an extent. Treat cops with respect simply because they are cops. If hes a dirt bag? report him. No point going to jail because you feel like being the tough guy, you will lose 99% of the time.
The problem is twofold. First, the concept that a civilian policeman somehow "outranks" a non-police civilian is an issue many have a problem with, civilian life is not the military.
Second, reporting almost never goes anywhere for the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and in many cases can result in further harassment or deep legal issues. In many cases, like civil forfeiture, where a cop can just take anything they want and you have to sue them to prove it wasn't used for illegal purposes, the process is quite simply beyond the means of many people.
Im not saying that cops "Outrank" Police, my point was that you still have to respect them, even if you don't like them. As a society we have all agreed to follow certain rules and to empower certain members of our society to enforce these rules. By saying your not going to follow the rules because you don't like the person who is enforcing them...well thats just being plain uncivil
Im not saying that cops "Outrank" Police, my point was that you still have to respect them, even if you don't like them. As a society we have all agreed to follow certain rules and to empower certain members of our society to enforce these rules. By saying your not going to follow the rules because you don't like the person who is enforcing them...well thats just being plain uncivil
The issue is, though, that in the US at least, it is not the particular officers, but the police in general that have lost respect. If it was the actions of a few that had taken place, you might have a point, but it is the actions of the police to defend and cover up and the systemic issues within some, possibly many, police forces. Militarization, institutional racism, shoot first ask questions later, closing rank and the other issues that the US police have. People have lost respect for both individual officers and the police as an institution. They have lost respect by the actions of the police as a whole as well as individual officers. The issue you were talking about was the attitude of a few people, but I would hope that if an enlisted man made a complaint about an NCO the USMC would take that seriously and investigate, and that if they did not then people would lose respect both for the people and the institution. In the case of the armed forces you show that by not enlisting or not re-enlisting. You don't have that choice with the police.
We had the same issue in the UK in the 70's and 80's, where the police had issues, and we now know there was problems with racism, corruption and violence. At the time it manifested in the same way as in the US. An attitude of "I AM THE LAW!", with arrogance and other deep issues, which culminated in major riots. The UK police worked hard to root this out and change their relationship with the public. They are not perfect now, but much better. The US police need to face up to this. They cannot just demand respect.
In the case of the story in the OP this seems to be part of the issue. UK police face problems like this every day with no gun. It seems some US police have become too reliant on the use of their guns and power they hold that they don't consider other options and from some of the videos I have seen many don't know how to defuse a dangerous situation in any other way than overwhelming power.
The new Time magazine (August 24) has a major article about being a police in the USA today. As well as the personal anecdotes and interviews, there is a wealth of interesting data.
One of the interesting points is that public respect for the police is now back down to the same level as just after the Rodney King scandal in 1991-92. Another one is that nationwide the average of police is 80% white. There are wide variations between areas. Pay ranges from about $30,000 to about double that depending on location.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there are major problems with policing & corrections systems in the US, and ultimately, respect must be earned, it cannot simply be given or it would be worthless.
Unfortunately, there is, on just about a daily basis, stories and videos of police doing wildly irresponsible things that erode that respect, and an almost nonexistent rate of them having to take responsibility for such actions, or at least a widely held perception of such. Coupled with other controversies like civil forfeiture and stop & frisk and the like, it makes it difficult to maintain respect.
We had a saying in the Marine Corps, "you might not respect the man but you sure as hell better respect the rank" Don't get me wrong, that only went so far. I can't tell you the number of times I wanted to tell someone with a higher rank exactly what kind of a Feth Nut they were, but I couldn't because they held a higher rank. The same should apply in the civilian world to an extent. Treat cops with respect simply because they are cops. If hes a dirt bag? report him. No point going to jail because you feel like being the tough guy, you will lose 99% of the time.
The problem is twofold. First, the concept that a civilian policeman somehow "outranks" a non-police civilian is an issue many have a problem with, civilian life is not the military.
Second, reporting almost never goes anywhere for the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and in many cases can result in further harassment or deep legal issues. In many cases, like civil forfeiture, where a cop can just take anything they want and you have to sue them to prove it wasn't used for illegal purposes, the process is quite simply beyond the means of many people.
Im not saying that cops "Outrank" Police, my point was that you still have to respect them, even if you don't like them. As a society we have all agreed to follow certain rules and to empower certain members of our society to enforce these rules. By saying your not going to follow the rules because you don't like the person who is enforcing them...well thats just being plain uncivil
To some extent I agree, however the person enforcing them is also acting as an agent of authority, and if they abuse it or are not properly representing that authority, that reflects strongly upon that authority, particularly when such cases are frequent and corrective action is...significantly less so.
Kilkrazy wrote: Another one is that nationwide the average of police is 80% white.
]
Which means exactly nothing unless we know how many applicants were of color.
It doesn't mean nothing, it means we can't derive any one singular meaning from it, however it does lead to a couple of different questions. Is the application pool proportionally representative and if so why is this not reflected in hiring stats, and if not, is there something about the institutions (either through public interactions or hiring processes) that is artificially shaping the applicant pool?
If you look deeper into this, there are many police departments that are very unrepresentative of the area they police, and there are some that are bang on. Meaning if your area is 90% white you probably expect to have round about 90% white policemen, but in a lot of cases, you have 40% black people and maybe only 20% black police.
The national average of 80% white reflects the fact that in most areas the police over-represent white people compared to the local population.
Given the amount of social tension in the USA around race, this of course is likely to lead to... trouble.
Vaktathi wrote: is there something about the institutions (either through public interactions or hiring processes) that is artificially shaping the applicant pool?
I mean, it certainly can't be popular culture influencing said populations:
And it apparently matters very little, as IIRC Baltimore was a city that had more minorities than whites in their police force, and also have minorities holding 4 of the top 6 positions.
The notion of over-representation is absurd to me. You can only hire from your applicant pool.
Well for a comparison look at the military. The US Army suffered from a lack of recruits during the recent war on terror. They were literally pushing through people that had no right to be in the military (weren't qualified mentally/physically/emotionally). And yet, even with that stat the US Military is only about 30% minorities. (black, hispanic, asian, non-white).
It has less to do with racism in hiring and more to do with the feeling of civic obligation.
To be fair, look at the lyrics, when they're talking about "got it bad cuz I'm brown" and "they have the authority to kill a minority" or "***ing me cuz I'm a teenager with a little bit of gold and a pager" in like, the opening thirty seconds, it would appear that there is a public relations issue that would possibly make it less likely for certain groups to look to join their organization due to a perception of being treated unfairly.
Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
I would argue that if such is being called into question, it's because such institutions have shown repeated and egregious abuses of such a right, which should be much scarier.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well for a comparison look at the military. The US Army suffered from a lack of recruits during the recent war on terror. They were literally pushing through people that had no right to be in the military (weren't qualified mentally/physically/emotionally). And yet, even with that stat the US Military is only about 30% minorities. (black, hispanic, asian, non-white).
It has less to do with racism in hiring and more to do with the feeling of civic obligation.
So what are you trying to say, black people have less of a inclination towards than civil service than white people? Can you clarify that statement?
Peter Wiggin wrote: Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
I would argue that if such is being called into question, it's because such institutions have shown repeated and egregious abuses of such a right, which should be much scarier.
And yet there is nowhere near the same outcry regarding the constant stream of dead black folks on our streets.
Ghazkuul wrote: I had a neighbor who was a Cop and him and his wife would routinely check on my wife when I was either deployed or out on long training exercises.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
No we are not. We are at the point where we question the judgment of the police in using the appropriate amount of force, because too many have used too much force. In the case of the original story the office thought he had a choice between shoot or do nothing, which means he is either not very good at his job, or not trained very well. The person who attacked him got hold of his gun, knock him out and had every opportunity to kill him, yet did not, but the cop felt he could shoot him or do nothing. The very fact that the cop let someone aggressive get that close to him is an issue. He needs to learn how to deal with that situation without escalating or restoring to his gun. The use of deadly force should be the last resort, but for the police in the US it seems to be the only resort.
We had the same issue in the UK in the 70's and 80's, where the police had issues, and we now know there was problems with racism, corruption and violence. At the time it manifested in the same way as in the US. An attitude of "I AM THE LAW!", with arrogance and other deep issues, which culminated in major riots. The UK police worked hard to root this out and change their relationship with the public. They are not perfect now, but much better. The US police need to face up to this. They cannot just demand respect.
Yes, they rooted out the previous racism so hard that out of fear of appearing racist they allowed an astonishing number of children to be raped. Not my idea of positive change.
If you look deeper into this, there are many police departments that are very unrepresentative of the area they police, and there are some that are bang on. Meaning if your area is 90% white you probably expect to have round about 90% white policemen, but in a lot of cases, you have 40% black people and maybe only 20% black police.
The national average of 80% white reflects the fact that in most areas the police over-represent white people compared to the local population.
Given the amount of social tension in the USA around race, this of course is likely to lead to... trouble.
I'm not saying the UK is any better, mind you.
The difficulty of course is hiring. Strangely, not everyone wants to be a police officer. Entire ethnic groups tend to not. This is compounded of course by discrimination.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
I would argue that if such is being called into question, it's because such institutions have shown repeated and egregious abuses of such a right, which should be much scarier.
Ghazkuul wrote: I had a neighbor who was a Cop and him and his wife would routinely check on my wife when I was either deployed or out on long training exercises.
I bet they did .
Also, beating up anyone is wrong.
Also Also, US needs less guns
So if you were walking down the street and you witnessed a nun being raped in public while at the same time being mugged, would it be ok then to beat someone up? I mean instead we could do the british thing and ask them politely to stop and if they didn't we would have to call their mother.
"I Tried to find an older video of some comedy skit where they have a british cop go down a Crime alley training scenario but failed :("
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with the American police is too much beating up of people who ought not to be beaten up.
Your right killkrazy, im sure you have a vast amount of experience dealing with US police and aren't basing your entire conclusion on sensationalist news stories.
So if you were walking down the street and you witnessed a nun being raped in public while at the same time being mugged, would it be ok then to beat someone up? I mean instead we could do the british thing and ask them politely to stop and if they didn't we would have to call their mother.
"I Tried to find an older video of some comedy skit where they have a british cop go down a Crime alley training scenario but failed :("
Option 1. Use opportunity to obtain better lane as everyone is watching the crime. Suckers! Option 2: attempt fist fight. Get ass kicked. Option 3: Call the PoPo. They come after they finish that important meeting at the Dunkins. Option 4: 9mm behind ear. Turns out it was performance art. Now you're in jail. Option 5: 9mm behind ear. Now you have the Cali Cartel after you. Option 6: unleash horde of wiener dogs. Righteous Victory!
Truly, the last thing we want is people getting worked up and jumping to crazy conclusions and panicking because of something that they heard in the media even though knowledgeable people try to reassure them and explain what is really happening.
We are at a point where the right to use violent force....
Any police officer who thinks he has a "right to use violent force" needs to turn in his badge and gun and be removed as far as possible from ever having any sort of authority over anyone.
Any police officer who thinks he has a "right to use violent force" needs to turn in his badge and gun and be removed as far as possible from ever having any sort of authority over anyone.
There obviously need to be efforts made to retrain and reeducated when it comes to deescalation. This much is clear.
However, I don't think police officers should be forced to put themselves in positions like this, where deescalation fails, and the only recourse is to allow themselves to be attacked.
We've mentioned multiple times in the thread that there needs to be a step before shooting someone.
Most folks have agreed that step could be tasing. But we need to recognize that tasing doesn't work a lot of the time (be it due to narcotics in the system of the 'tasee' or due to equipment failure) and not all police officers carry tasers all the time. Remember, if that taser does fail, an advancing assailant will likely be on top of a police officer by the time they're able to pull their firearm.
I think mandatory body cams can help with due diligence and keep both sides 'more' honest, so I'm all for them.
But I don't know if there's a good solution in the intermediary beyond training, training, training.
Well, there is, but stating it would be dangerously close to "blaming the victim" here, I think.
No we are not. We are at the point where we question the judgment of the police in using the appropriate amount of force, because too many have used too much force. In the case of the original story the office thought he had a choice between shoot or do nothing, which means he is either not very good at his job, or not trained very well. The person who attacked him got hold of his gun, knock him out and had every opportunity to kill him, yet did not, but the cop felt he could shoot him or do nothing. The very fact that the cop let someone aggressive get that close to him is an issue. He needs to learn how to deal with that situation without escalating or restoring to his gun. The use of deadly force should be the last resort, but for the police in the US it seems to be the only resort.
Clearly. But no amount of training is going to deescalate some people. Especially ones with warrants out and nothing to lose. The notion that "deadly force is the only resort" is absurd; deescalations and tasings, which happen ALL THE TIME, don't make the news.
I think you vastly overestimate the amount of time one has to make a decision of whether or not to draw on an advancing subject.
Any police officer who thinks he has a "right to use violent force" needs to turn in his badge and gun and be removed as far as possible from ever having any sort of authority over anyone.
There obviously need to be efforts made to retrain and reeducated when it comes to deescalation. This much is clear.
However, I don't think police officers should be forced to put themselves in positions like this, where deescalation fails, and the only recourse is to allow themselves to be attacked.
We've mentioned multiple times in the thread that there needs to be a step before shooting someone.
Most folks have agreed that step could be tasing. But we need to recognize that tasing doesn't work a lot of the time (be it due to narcotics in the system of the 'tasee' or due to equipment failure) and not all police officers carry tasers all the time. Remember, if that taser does fail, an advancing assailant will likely be on top of a police officer by the time they're able to pull their firearm.
I think mandatory body cams can help with due diligence and keep both sides 'more' honest, so I'm all for them.
But I don't know if there's a good solution in the intermediary beyond training, training, training.
Well, there is, but stating it would be dangerously close to "blaming the victim" here, I think.
And it might just be that I am taking that statement wrong, but it just feels like it's a horrible mindset and not something that I would want anyone with a weapon and/or authority to have.
I agree that police officers have a duty to protect themselves and others. They also have a duty to protect the bad guy to the extend that they should use the least violent means to secure an arrest and the least violent means to protect themselves and others (which truthfully the least violent way sometimes is to shoot and kill because it will reduce the overall amount of violence that can result if you don't stop someone).
But "I have a duty to protect and serve, which sometimes includes violent force to carry out that duty" is different than "I have a right to use violent force" IMO. It just feels a bit "you see this badge, that's my 'do whatever I want and get away with it' badge. I have a right to use violent force whenever I want". Like I said, it might be a minor difference, or maybe I'm just reading too much into that statement.
But "I have a duty to protect and serve, which sometimes includes violent force to carry out that duty" is different than "I have a right to use violent force" IMO. It just feels a bit "you see this badge, that's my 'do whatever I want and get away with it' badge. I have a right to use violent force whenever I want". Like I said, it might be a minor difference, or maybe I'm just reading too much into that statement.
I don't think you're reading too much into it. I think it's an important distinction to make, as, to me, it sorta draws the line between someone that wants to protect and serve and someone that wants to harm and kill.
We don't want sociopaths on the force, obviously. But I also don't think we want officers to be afraid to use violent force if they have to.
It's easy to say, in retrospect, that this officer should have used deadly force. Unfortunately, if he had, we'd likely be seeing him on the news with another "cop shoots unarmed black man" headline. Doesn't seem to be a middle ground right now.
It's easy to say, in retrospect, that this officer should have used deadly force. Unfortunately, if he had, we'd likely be seeing him on the news with another "cop shoots unarmed black man" headline. Doesn't seem to be a middle ground right now.
I honestly still don't think that he had justification to use deadly force while he was thinking "I think I would be on the news". Someone being angry and walking towards you is not enough of a reason to kill, heck people get into physical fights with cops every day and that still isn't a justification to kill. He did have justification to kill once he started to fight with him over his gun IMO, but not really much before then.
The headline would have been right because at the time there was no physical altercation, no history of violent behavior that the cop knew about, and no weapon of any kind in the hands of the bad guy.
It's a gakky situation to be in, that's for sure. And you can't really shoot people because they scare you or you have a hunch that they might turn out violent, even if that hunch turns out right.
It is a good case for having two cops work together, but that's not an option for the many departments that barely have enough cops on the force without having to require them to buddy up.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Most social justice advocates see this as a victory if twitter, websites, and my classes at UC are any kind of worthy rubric of judgement.
The role of the media is absolutely to blame. We are at a point where the right to use violent force, bestowed upon police institutions by the social contract, is being called into question. Thats really messed up when you think about it.
The social contract bestows the right upon police to use the minimum level of force required to protect the population and those in their custody. It doesn't give them carte blanche to beat the gak out of people, or murder people who run away from them, or to lie about the actions of their friends so that they walk.
At the end of the day, cops are CIVILIANS. If you want to kick doors and kill people, sack up and join the military. The model for law enforcement should be closer to that of a social worker.
I do think that it is important for us to make sure that questionable actions by cops and bad policies are made public, and that the media is an important tool for that even if they are often self serving in regards to creating ratings.
At the same time we need to make sure that we give credit to all the good cops and departments out there to make sure that we are "anti bad cop" and not "anti cop".
But "I have a duty to protect and serve, which sometimes includes violent force to carry out that duty" is different than "I have a right to use violent force" IMO. It just feels a bit "you see this badge, that's my 'do whatever I want and get away with it' badge. I have a right to use violent force whenever I want". Like I said, it might be a minor difference, or maybe I'm just reading too much into that statement.
Ghazkuul wrote: I had a neighbor who was a Cop and him and his wife would routinely check on my wife when I was either deployed or out on long training exercises.
I bet they did .
Also, beating up anyone is wrong.
Also Also, US needs less guns
So if you were walking down the street and you witnessed a nun being raped in public while at the same time being mugged, would it be ok then to beat someone up? I mean instead we could do the british thing and ask them politely to stop and if they didn't we would have to call their mother.
"I Tried to find an older video of some comedy skit where they have a british cop go down a Crime alley training scenario but failed :("
That would depend on the person (being the 'you', not the people in the situation, before I get yelled at for does it depend on the nun/rape mugger for me to do anything), I'd call the cops, while running up to kick they guy where it hurts, does it make my actions right? In a strict moral sense no. In a is this probably the right thing to do sense? I would feel that yes it is. But then again if everyone had my amazing set of morals, the whole situation wouldn't have existed
Anyway I didn't want to get involved in no moral discussion, I jut wanted to make a "I bet they did" joke, while providing the bare minimum of being vaguely on topic
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with the American police is too much beating up of people who ought not to be beaten up.
Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience. Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
As for the question about how to treat people actively engaged in a crime, well I've seen large crowds literally turn a blind eye while a woman was being beaten in the public square in front of Oakland City Hall. The world is a totally fked up place.
At the end of the day, cops are CIVILIANS. The model for law enforcement should be closer to that of a social worker.
Look brother, no offense here.....but have you ever actually dealt with the social issues you are talking about?
Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience. Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
.
I've lived in placed with murder rates similar to what you lay out above (NYC during the crack epidemic) and despite that I still don't see the justification for choking a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes. Are you trying to say that high crime justifies police brutality? Cause that's totally what your argument comes across as.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience.
That incredibly ironic coming from the guy, who a year ago, swore that Ebola was the greatest threat to America.
Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
Yeah dude, I'm sure you've got some stories to tell. By the way, how is your friend's mom that caught Ebola in Texas?
As for the question about how to treat people actively engaged in a crime, well I've seen large crowds literally turn a blind eye while a woman was being beaten in the public square in front of Oakland City Hall. The world is a totally fked up place.
Look brother, no offense here.....but have you ever actually dealt with the social issues you are talking about?
Do you? Based on all of the obviously lies you've told in other threads, I doubt it.
Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.
Cops are civilians and they aren't our masters. High crime doesn't justify brutality.
At the end of the day, cops are CIVILIANS. The model for law enforcement should be closer to that of a social worker.
Look brother, no offense here.....but have you ever actually dealt with the social issues you are talking about?
Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.
Not sure what social issue you're talking about, but the world isn't anything like Robocop. I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.
How can you expect anyone to respect cops given the current model? At best, they generate revenue for the community by digging into the pockets of hard-working people with real productive careers. At worst, they assault and murder people. There's very little 'getting your cat out of a tree' these days. Nowadays, a SWAT team kicks the door to the wrong house, shoots your Corgi and sends you a bill for the ammo.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.
Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.
Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.
That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.
Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.
Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.
Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.
Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.
Sorry, having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean. Could you rephrase?
Ouze wrote: Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.
That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:
Ouze wrote: Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.
\
And I think this is key. I've a few friends in law enforcement, and based on conversations with them, I get more range time than many of them do. From my understanding, in many departments the firearm qualifications are pretty basic (15 hours of training a year) and for the most part if they want to train outside of the designated training sessions, they have to pay for their own ammunition.
And that 15 hours includes includes situational drilling.
More training is always good but I'm not sure making, or pretending to make, police forces into some sort of military-light force is a very good idea. Their roles are different and how they approach situations is also different.
Ahtman wrote: More training is always good but I'm not sure making, or pretending to make, police forces into some sort of military-light force is a very good idea. Their roles are different and how they approach situations is also different.
I think he was trying to say that more training was necessary to teach officers how and when to use lethal force and not how to become marksmen.
Firearm training varies wildly between departments, but most recreational shooters will get more range time a year than just about any department mandates. Firearms training for some large police forces, particularly the NYPD, often tends to be abysmal or almost nonexistent after leaving the academy for most officers.
The other issue however is that many are trained to shoot way too early, with a bar for what constitutes a "threat" so low it's mind boggling (and would land any non-police shooter a felony prison sentence), and in general a system that approves of that practice.
Yeah, we're talking about 2 different problems. What Cincy is describing is why police officers are some famously terrible shots (which is a problem) and what I was describing was their willingness to threaten and use lethal force when it's inappropriate (which is also a problem).
It's easy to say, in retrospect, that this officer should have used deadly force. Unfortunately, if he had, we'd likely be seeing him on the news with another "cop shoots unarmed black man" headline. Doesn't seem to be a middle ground right now.
I don't buy it actually. He got his butt kicked and now he is making an excuse.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Okay, i concede the neutralizing shot thing. Probably far too difficult in the heat of the moment. Honestly its probably video games more than hollywood that made me think that was valid.
But why not taze him or pull out the mace?
Just to be clear, i think it's awful this man went through this. No one should have to feel afraid to defend themselves.
In canada, it's a few months of training and a physical test to be an RCMP officer, and i think more to be a city policeman. Their physical test is much harder also I believe.
Well I am sure you are well gone with the thread, and its completely off topic from what I did read, but I wanted to just add in some perspective.
In my experience, detectives, who this guy was, tend not to wear tazers and mace. They wear nicer clothes and the yellow tazer really clashes with their ties. (or shoes, or w.e its a joke).
Tazers really aren't as great as the movies and TV make them out to be. They don't always work.
Mace is more to get you a few more seconds to clear your firearm from your holster to use it in a fight. Mace won't keep people from hurting you, just blinds everyone, IF it even effects the person.
Depending on how far away the perp was from the cop, they was no way he could have cleared a tazer or mace from his belt if he even had one. Wouldn't be enough time to get the firearm out either.
Cops aren't civilians, and using that kind of a model will result in more cops and citizens dying while criminals are empowered. See the original post in this thread for an example.
I call bs.
1. Only active duty military can say they aren't civilians. They need to quit if they say they are.
2. Blah blah on the danger. Lived in where there were shootings every day. Your argument holds nothing.
Peter Wiggin wrote: Idea: Stop basing your viewpoint on media storms and base it on real life experience. Go live in a place with over 100 murders per 400k residents, where people are mugged in broad daylight and children are shot dead by drive by shooters. Demonize the police a bit more once you've stepped outside the "safe" zones.
.
I've lived in placed with murder rates similar to what you lay out above (NYC during the crack epidemic) and despite that I still don't see the justification for choking a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes. Are you trying to say that high crime justifies police brutality? Cause that's totally what your argument comes across as.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, we're talking about 2 different problems. What Cincy is describing is why police officers are some famously terrible shots (which is a problem) and what I was describing was their willingness to threaten and use lethal force when it's inappropriate (which is also a problem).
I'd argue some of that would come from the situational drilling I mentioned as well.
It's very easy to say, "you only escalate to use of a firearm when XYZ happens." It's much different when there's some practical drilling associated with it that an officer can rely on.
The militarization of the police isn't want we want, obviously, but I don't think ensuring they can hit what they're firing at while the adrenaline is pumping is a bad thing. Situational and practical drilling (I've only taken one class myself, so I'm hardly an expert) can, I think, only help with that, too.
Of course, all of these ideas are predicated on the usual question:
If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.
Ouze wrote: If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.
training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.
This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.
If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.
Ouze wrote: Military types on these forums have said repeatedly that if they exercised the same weapons discipline in active war zones as our police do while they're in our cities, they'd go to jail.
That's a problem, to say nothing of the neccessity of the tactical roll:
As I remember the officer tripped and turned it into a roll. Of course him running like a nutter causing him to trip so hard he had to roll to fix it...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I've done a similar job to law enforcement in a part of the world with far more media attention than your average US street, where we had terrorists with suicide vests, RPGs, and machine guns trying to kill us. Somehow we managed not to murder innocent people running away, cover up murders, and kill unarmed men. You would think that US law enforcement could at least manage that much.
Maybe this is just one of those "media doesn't paint the right picture" things, but one of the things that always stands out to me is that our soldiers really are much more restraint with pointing their weapons at people. Not even talking about shooting people here, just pointing their weapon in their direction.
Is it the case that the structure of the military and their role that a single individuals actions affects the majority? The police always appear to me as individual units.
Sorry, having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean. Could you rephrase?
Sorry, struggling to compose my thoughts. Ignore my post for the time being.
Ouze wrote: If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.
training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.
This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.
If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.
Frazzled channeling Confucius makes a good point here.
Ouze wrote: If we can as a society can decide that we're willing to bankroll a police force via our taxes, then that rationale should also extend to having a more competent police force.
training is helpful, but you don't need a massive budget increase. A change in training methodology is simple.
This happens from management at the top. As noted, if PoPo behaving badly was punished it wouldn't happen. If the courts found SWAT raids violated the Constitution it wouldn't happen. If PoPo hitting the wrong house and shooting your dog were tried and convicted it wouldn't happen any more.
If you don't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, you won't get it.
You're totally right, yeah. I have to wonder if cops wouldn't be a little less triggerhappy if those lawsuit payouts came out of their pension funds.
Part of the problem is that the training manuals for police officers, often outsourced to one of very few companies in the world writing them by various municipalities, think that every officer lives and works in Detroit during Mad Max times.
I do believe the NO police force is the only US police force to ever have had an active serial killer on its payroll.
If you have Texas plates and you're going through Louisiana on I10, there's a good chance they will pull you over. Frazzled advises stay away. Where New Mexico is a rad filled hellscape, Louisiana is a prehistoric death world, replete with multiple killer snakes, gators, and one eyed cannibal tribes warring with one another. From what I understand Australians feel right at home.
All the police hate and the bile that people say to them, is really making me reconsider becoming a federal agent, which requires timr as a beat officer.
There are good cops out there, don't get me wrong. The problem is, a lot of cops aren't very good, and the ones that are Really Bad are, too often, defended by the ones that just aren't very good, which makes the good ones too afraid, or powerless, to speak out against the ones that are Really Bad.
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
hotsauceman1 wrote: All the police hate and the bile that people say to them, is really making me reconsider becoming a federal agent, which requires timr as a beat officer.
That might be a good idea because...I don't think that was a realistic goal anyway.
Frazzled wrote: I do believe the NO police force is the only US police force to ever have had an active serial killer on its payroll.
If you have Texas plates and you're going through Louisiana on I10, there's a good chance they will pull you over. Frazzled advises stay away. Where New Mexico is a rad filled hellscape, Louisiana is a prehistoric death world, replete with multiple killer snakes, gators, and one eyed cannibal tribes warring with one another. From what I understand Australians feel right at home.
l
I got along well with the NO cops when I lived there to the point they'd let me know when tow trucks were coming through Canal street to haul cars off that were parked on the wrong side. This gave me time to move my pick up to somewhere else and avoid impound fees.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good to know you are still in the occupation of putting people down and crushing their dreams
Some people just call em like they see em.
But why? it is no business of his of my dreams. I put that out there because from what I have experianced, alot of people are no longer considering careers in law enforcement specifically because of how police are now seen by a fast majority of people. Example the roasting a pig outside the Ferguson PD building.
I know it's getting off topic, but you have had a number of various careers that you are pursuing, all of which are somehow now longer your goals whenever a particular topic comes up here.
Nothing wrong with having goals, but it doesn't seem like you have settled on any of them yet.
d-usa wrote: I know it's getting off topic, but you have had a number of various careers that you are pursuing, all of which are somehow now longer your goals whenever a particular topic comes up here.
Nothing wrong with having goals, but it doesn't seem like you have settled on any of them yet.
Your Right. I do, And, lets leave it at this and not get too off-topic. I dont say this stuff just to relate to a topic, I am that indecisive about career goals in my life or where I wanna go.
Now, OT. It is something I have heard of, less and less people are considering careers in LE. my friend, who is studying to be a FBI profiler, gets this alot, "How can you wanna be in law enforcement, dont you know how people feel about them"
I'm pretty sure the FBI would be keen on hiring folks that had mastery over their contractions and word tenses. I hear they usually are able to pick from the cream of the crop.
Additionally, sociology doesn't appear to be on their "Potential Backgrounds of Interest" list.
No 'off topic' now that I've said it - back 'on topic'!
You introduced your 'Federal Agent' aspirations and then dismissed them because...er...?
I don't think it was ever a realistic thing, based on a LOT of what you've posted here in the OT.
I'm also not sure why you introduced here in this thread in the first place!
The description I've heard about most federal agents, over and over is the term "squared away."
I've met and worked with multiple forms of current and former Federal LEOs, ranging from FPS (essentially police/security that only has jurisdiction in federal properties) to a former VA Inspector/exectutive. As a rule, federal agents are pretty elite. Nearly all have military experience and/or advanced degrees. The FBI will really only look at applications from Veterans, Lawyers, Accountants, or scientists.
Your Right. I do, And, lets leave it at this and not get too off-topic. I dont say this stuff just to relate to a topic, I am that indecisive about career goals in my life or where I wanna go.
I think that if you have shifting aspirations to begin with, it's harder to attribute any given shift to a change in the environment, you know?
Yes, there are things that make a career less satisfying, but if the media coverage of the last year or so was enough to scare you away from law enforcement, that's probably for the best.
d-usa wrote: I know it's getting off topic, but you have had a number of various careers that you are pursuing, all of which are somehow now longer your goals whenever a particular topic comes up here.
Nothing wrong with having goals, but it doesn't seem like you have settled on any of them yet.
Off the top of my head, I recall
Teacher
Counselor
Ergonomics Consultant
Bikini Inspector
Federal Agent
No 'off topic' now that I've said it - back 'on topic'!
You introduced your 'Federal Agent' aspirations and then dismissed them because...er...?
I don't think it was ever a realistic thing, based on a LOT of what you've posted here in the OT.
I'm also not sure why you introduced here in this thread in the first place!
The description I've heard about most federal agents, over and over is the term "squared away."
I've met and worked with multiple forms of current and former Federal LEOs, ranging from FPS (essentially police/security that only has jurisdiction in federal properties) to a former VA Inspector/exectutive. As a rule, federal agents are pretty elite. Nearly all have military experience and/or advanced degrees. The FBI will really only look at applications from Veterans, Lawyers, Accountants, or scientists.
Your Right. I do, And, lets leave it at this and not get too off-topic. I dont say this stuff just to relate to a topic, I am that indecisive about career goals in my life or where I wanna go.
I think that if you have shifting aspirations to begin with, it's harder to attribute any given shift to a change in the environment, you know?
Yes, there are things that make a career less satisfying, but if the media coverage of the last year or so was enough to scare you away from law enforcement, that's probably for the best.
VERY good points there - very good!
The current climate means that anyone in Law Enforcement or other 'agent' type positions is going to have to be the elite of the elite!
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
Not really. There are many professions where having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can get you or someone else killed. In fact police officer is quite low on the list of likelihood of that risk. It is not every day that officers are put in that situation, and even less often that their actions can put them or someone else at a huge amount more risk, unless they are grossly negligent. Unlike, say, a doctor, nurse, paramedic, fire fighter, lumber jack, deep sea fisherman, HGV driver, construction worker, fork lift operative, winer dog wrangler, miner, farmer and I am sure many more. All jobs where a small mistake, not watching what you are doing or not paying attention to safety standards can result in serious injury or death, very quickly.
d-usa wrote: I know it's getting off topic, but you have had a number of various careers that you are pursuing, all of which are somehow now longer your goals whenever a particular topic comes up here.
Nothing wrong with having goals, but it doesn't seem like you have settled on any of them yet.
Off the top of my head, I recall
Teacher
Counselor
Ergonomics Consultant
Bikini Inspector
Federal Agent
d-usa wrote: I know it's getting off topic, but you have had a number of various careers that you are pursuing, all of which are somehow now longer your goals whenever a particular topic comes up here.
Nothing wrong with having goals, but it doesn't seem like you have settled on any of them yet.
Off the top of my head, I recall
Teacher
Counselor
Ergonomics Consultant
Bikini Inspector
Federal Agent
"What do you want to do when you grow up little Frazzled?" "I want to rob banks. " "You want to be a bank robber? Don't you think thats wrong?" "No I want to own a bank. Being a bank robber is for chumps. "
Frazzled wrote: I do believe the NO police force is the only US police force to ever have had an active serial killer on its payroll.
If you have Texas plates and you're going through Louisiana on I10, there's a good chance they will pull you over. Frazzled advises stay away. Where New Mexico is a rad filled hellscape, Louisiana is a prehistoric death world, replete with multiple killer snakes, gators, and one eyed cannibal tribes warring with one another. From what I understand Australians feel right at home.
Nonsense! I've driven across the state of Louisiana way too many times to remember, and never been pulled over. Texas plates every time. Can you imagine the sheer volume of Texas plates driving along the I10 every day? That's a lot of work to pull over on a "good chance".
Frazzled wrote: I do believe the NO police force is the only US police force to ever have had an active serial killer on its payroll.
If you have Texas plates and you're going through Louisiana on I10, there's a good chance they will pull you over. Frazzled advises stay away. Where New Mexico is a rad filled hellscape, Louisiana is a prehistoric death world, replete with multiple killer snakes, gators, and one eyed cannibal tribes warring with one another. From what I understand Australians feel right at home.
Nonsense! I've driven across the state of Louisiana way too many times to remember, and never been pulled over. Texas plates every time. Can you imagine the sheer volume of Texas plates driving along the I10 every day? That's a lot of work to pull over on a "good chance".
Your moniker says LA. Thnk of it as the UCLA v. USC rivalry, except Louisiana is a separate country and century.
EDIT: I noticed you didn't disagree that New Mexico is a rad filled hellscape and Louisiana is a prehistoric death world, replete with multiple killer snakes, gators, and one eyed cannibal tribes warring with one another. Oh and if you dig your feet down, they'll come up with BP oil. But they have a good ole time.
"Mexico, so far from God, so close to LA" -Jerry Brown
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
Not really. There are many professions where having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can get you or someone else killed. In fact police officer is quite low on the list of likelihood of that risk. It is not every day that officers are put in that situation, and even less often that their actions can put them or someone else at a huge amount more risk, unless they are grossly negligent. Unlike, say, a doctor, nurse, paramedic, fire fighter, lumber jack, deep sea fisherman, HGV driver, construction worker, fork lift operative, winer dog wrangler, miner, farmer and I am sure many more. All jobs where a small mistake, not watching what you are doing or not paying attention to safety standards can result in serious injury or death, very quickly.
Yes, but no one expects a construction worker or a paramedic to haul off and shoot someone. Sometimes a lot of someones. Or beat someone to death with a club.
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
Not really. There are many professions where having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can get you or someone else killed. In fact police officer is quite low on the list of likelihood of that risk. It is not every day that officers are put in that situation, and even less often that their actions can put them or someone else at a huge amount more risk, unless they are grossly negligent. Unlike, say, a doctor, nurse, paramedic, fire fighter, lumber jack, deep sea fisherman, HGV driver, construction worker, fork lift operative, winer dog wrangler, miner, farmer and I am sure many more. All jobs where a small mistake, not watching what you are doing or not paying attention to safety standards can result in serious injury or death, very quickly.
Yes, but no one expects a construction worker or a paramedic to haul off and shoot someone. Sometimes a lot of someones. Or beat someone to death with a club.
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
Not really. There are many professions where having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can get you or someone else killed. In fact police officer is quite low on the list of likelihood of that risk. It is not every day that officers are put in that situation, and even less often that their actions can put them or someone else at a huge amount more risk, unless they are grossly negligent. Unlike, say, a doctor, nurse, paramedic, fire fighter, lumber jack, deep sea fisherman, HGV driver, construction worker, fork lift operative, winer dog wrangler, miner, farmer and I am sure many more. All jobs where a small mistake, not watching what you are doing or not paying attention to safety standards can result in serious injury or death, very quickly.
Yes, but no one expects a construction worker or a paramedic to haul off and shoot someone. Sometimes a lot of someones. Or beat someone to death with a club.
Any heavy equipment/crane operators can cause far more damage/death/destruction then a cop can.
Anyone who commutes in a private vehicle already has the best/worst means to cause mayhem as a cop.
Although the common mind set that someone killed by a gun is somehow worse or more dead then someone killed via other means would lead to your conclusion.
Unlike most other jobs, a police officer having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can and does get people killed. The same is not true for most other professions so, yes, they are held to a much higher standard.
Not really. There are many professions where having a bad day or acting unprofessionally can get you or someone else killed. In fact police officer is quite low on the list of likelihood of that risk. It is not every day that officers are put in that situation, and even less often that their actions can put them or someone else at a huge amount more risk, unless they are grossly negligent. Unlike, say, a doctor, nurse, paramedic, fire fighter, lumber jack, deep sea fisherman, HGV driver, construction worker, fork lift operative, winer dog wrangler, miner, farmer and I am sure many more. All jobs where a small mistake, not watching what you are doing or not paying attention to safety standards can result in serious injury or death, very quickly.
Yes, but no one expects a construction worker or a paramedic to haul off and shoot someone. Sometimes a lot of someones. Or beat someone to death with a club.
How is expecting a police officer not to beat someone to death holding them to a higher standard than expecting a paramedic to undertake complex medical procedures in very difficult situations? Paramedics have to work on people who are drunk, on drugs, violent, abusive, in dangerous situations, all whilst staying calm and providing the best care possible and with no personal protection. I would say they have a far more difficult job, and are held to far higher standards, than the police.
I've not ready all the posts yet, but the report starts off with:
he hesitated to use force because he didn't want to be accused of needlessly killing an unarmed man.
Is that the only possible outcome of stopping someone?
Is lethal force the only option available to the police?
If the robbery was armed, having the weapon out when stopping the vehicle was probably justified.
Otherwise, is holding the weapon at every stop normal?
Skinnereal wrote: I've not ready all the posts yet, but the report starts off with:
he hesitated to use force because he didn't want to be accused of needlessly killing an unarmed man.
Is that the only possible outcome of stopping someone?
Is lethal force the only option available to the police?
If the robbery was armed, having the weapon out when stopping the vehicle was probably justified.
Otherwise, is holding the weapon at every stop normal?
We don't know much of the details, but no, having the weapon out is not standard, although given that there was an active APB on the guy, discretion would indicate that you use force.
As for the actual violence... if a person tries to go for a cops gun, that's pretty much grounds for lethal force in any US jurisdiction. In my limited experience, most police departments actually have use of lethal force in those circumstances as standard policy. The reason is actually pretty straight forward: one of the duties of any first responder is to not become a further victim.
What people need to understand is that only a fairly small percentage of police shootings really attract much investigation, and even fewer cause outrage. Active suspect, out of his car, bullet wounds in the front, cop reports that he was attacked: outside of any evidence to the contrary, that's a pretty clear cut example of a justified shooting under current law and policy.
This leads to my real point: there's almost no way the cop here didn't screw up. That's not grounds for the beating he received, and we all make mistakes, but I'd bet anybody lunch that the story about media coverage is a post hoc rationalization. Keep in mind, most cops never fire their weapons in anger. It's not uncommon for a person to freeze up, or to simply decide they will try to resolve a situation with less than lethal force.
To really go off on a tangent, , I'd contend that this sort of behavior after the fact, with the union whining about the media coverage, shows just how removed cops are from the actual concerns. What if, instead of blaming the current climate for his beating, the cop had claimed that he chose not to use lethal force, in an effort to save lives? The answer is that, odds are, the cop in question will be investigated, not for shooting for the suspect, but for failure to shoot the suspect.
Link all the facts, especially how all this information has come from the union, and I think you can see that the officer in question is looking to save his ass from his next review board.
This leads to my real point: there's almost no way the cop here didn't screw up.
I agree with nearly all of your post but struggle with this.
We know he was plainclothes. As such, he most likely had minimal kit on him.
We know he was older and the subject was younger and in good shape.
Why "must he have screwed up?" Is it not plausible that he was unable to de-escalate the situation with a subject that had active warrants and was simply attacked and overpowered?
Very plausible because that is likely what happened. He should have stopped there but then went "its media's fault! I intentionally let myself get beat up!" Nonsense.
This leads to my real point: there's almost no way the cop here didn't screw up.
I agree with nearly all of your post but struggle with this.
We know he was plainclothes. As such, he most likely had minimal kit on him.
We know he was older and the subject was younger and in good shape.
Why "must he have screwed up?" Is it not plausible that he was unable to de-escalate the situation with a subject that had active warrants and was simply attacked and overpowered?
Maybe screw up is a harsh word, because that implies that he is a failure as a cop, but he could have done a better job there.
Like I said, one of the keys in a conflict is to keep control of your weapon. Whether it was lack of training or an error in execution, an armed police officer was overpowered by an unarmed suspect. That's a screw up, right?
Polonius wrote: , an armed police officer was overpowered by an unarmed suspect. That's a screw up, right?
Is it?
Dude didn't want to shoot the guy. Media applause.
But are we to expect that every cop should able to fend off every attacker with their bare hands and protect their firearm while doing so?
I struggle with that notion.
Always someone bigger, tougher, meaner, and with nothing to lose....
Except the cop didn't have to use his bare hands. He was justified to use his firearm. He didn't, which is probably for the best in the long run because everybody survived.
But... my understanding of police procedure generally has officers trained to use lethal force in that circumstances. That he didn't is actually going to be an issue between him and his supervisor.
Polonius wrote: , an armed police officer was overpowered by an unarmed suspect. That's a screw up, right?
Is it?
Dude didn't want to shoot the guy. Media applause.
But are we to expect that every cop should able to fend off every attacker with their bare hands and protect their firearm while doing so?
I struggle with that notion.
Always someone bigger, tougher, meaner, and with nothing to lose....
Except the cop didn't have to use his bare hands. He was justified to use his firearm. He didn't, which is probably for the best in the long run because everybody survived.
But... my understanding of police procedure generally has officers trained to use lethal force in that circumstances. That he didn't is actually going to be an issue between him and his supervisor.
And if he had, we'd have had another "Unarmed black man killed by evil cop" story on our hands.
I don't envy him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, a State Trooper was killed in Louisiana two days ago. Wasn't mentioned here at all so I figured bring it up.
And if he had, we'd have had another "Unarmed black man killed by evil cop" story on our hands.
I don't envy him.
Probably not. This happens a lot, actually, with both white and black suspects. The outrage in the biggest stories has generally stemmed from three factors:
1) The specific circumstances which cast a lot of suspicion on the police's report that they had to use lethal force. In the past few years, you had a young man shot in the back, a 12 year old killed in the park, a man choked to death after selling loosies, and a suspect die in police custody due to neglect. This was a legit stop of a violent suspect, who clearly assaulted a cop.
2) Most of the protest have taken place in cities with pretty serious histories of racial inequity in policing. Which means that the trust for cops is very low.
3) the callous response by the police, both personally and as a group, toward the victims.
Is an unarmed suspect acting like he is going to get into a physical fight with a police officer automatic justification for lethal force? I don't think so, and there is a lot of evidence that seems to support the notion that gunning down anyone that is unarmed and acting like he will fight you is not standard police procedure. We don't even routinely shoot unarmed suspects AFTER they have been in a physical fight with police officers.
He was 100% right in thinking that if he would have shot him then it could have been another news story about a white cop shooting an unarmed black man that has not physically assaulted anybody. He might have been justified to use lethal force after the fight started, he absolutely would have been justified to use lethal force after the guy started to go for his gun. But shooting down an unarmed suspect as a response to "come at me bro" should never be an appropriate escalation of force.
And if he had, we'd have had another "Unarmed black man killed by evil cop" story on our hands.
I don't envy him.
Probably not. This happens a lot, actually, with both white and black suspects. The outrage in the biggest stories has generally stemmed from three factors:
1) The specific circumstances which cast a lot of suspicion on the police's report that they had to use lethal force. In the past few years, you had a young man shot in the back, a 12 year old killed in the park, a man choked to death after selling loosies, and a suspect die in police custody due to neglect. This was a legit stop of a violent suspect, who clearly assaulted a cop.
2) Most of the protest have taken place in cities with pretty serious histories of racial inequity in policing. Which means that the trust for cops is very low.
3) the callous response by the police, both personally and as a group, toward the victims.
In hindsight, with people watching and taking pictures and probably videos, a shooting would of gone viral pretty quickly. outage spawns and the media goes nuts. and the wheels keep on turning. It really doesn't matter if the shooting was justified. it will get unfairly hyped. the department will get angry mail and possible threats and blablabla. but in this case it would of died out quickly i think compared to other caseds.
I might be wrong, but supposedly mike brown was shot in the back, or that is the story atleast.
But the media is SO pervasive that people still believe it despite evidence to the contrary.
I doubt there would be pictures and videos of the shooting, as there weren't any of the assault, just the aftermath.
People seem confused as to what goes viral. Horrible things that everybody agrees are horrible things don't cause outrage. While those that many see as horrible, while others see as no big deal, get a lot of airtime and ink.
People aren't as stupid as you might think, and they tend to see when people killings are appropriate. For example, while there was rioting over a death in police custody in Baltimore, there were also 12 other people killed by police in Maryland in 2015 alone, without a lot of complaint.
This is a really interesting website to see the demographics of police killings:
People aren't as stupid as you might think, and they tend to see when people killings are appropriate.
Ahh, I've discovered where we disagree. I'll let someone far more intelligent than me phrase it:
That's cute, but we're not exactly in a time of civil upheaval. There were half assed riots in two cities, well, one city and one neighborhood.
We live in a nation with at least hundreds of people killed by police a year. There are national stories of maybe a few per year. This shows that for the most part, people are pretty apathetic about police shootings.
Which indicates that, maybe, just maybe, there are reasons some of them make people angrier.
That's cute, but we're not exactly in a time of civil upheaval. There were half assed riots in two cities, well, one city and one neighborhood.
We live in a nation with at least hundreds of people killed by police a year. There are national stories of maybe a few per year. This shows that for the most part, people are pretty apathetic about police shootings.
Which indicates that, maybe, just maybe, there are reasons some of them make people angrier.
Well, let's look at the ones that have made people angry:
Brown -- Committed a crime, forensics shows attempts to interact with the LEOs firearm. Shameful media representation leads to "half assed" rioting that "only" resulted in around $5M in damages.
Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police. Police, according to the video, handle the situation poorly.
DuBose - Subject has open warrants and 2lbs of MJ in the car; not sure what the video shows; IMO impossible to tell if the car is moving when the shots are fired or not.
Grey - Probably clearest case of police malfeasance.
The link you provided shows a lot of criminals being criminals. The only difference is that the criminals I listed above (Rice wasn't really a criminal, just a stupid kid with bad parents) didn't have working firearms on them.
I'd say this cop getting his ass beat would tend to support the notion that, just because you don't have a firearm, you can still be dangerous.
I'd say this cop getting his ass beat would tend to support the notion that, just because you don't have a firearm, you can still be dangerous.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The question is when do you cross the threshold from "he might be dangerous" to "he is dangerous" and at what point is the use of lethal force appropriate.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The question is when do you cross the threshold from "he might be dangerous" to "he is dangerous" and at what point is the use of lethal force appropriate.
Sometime before getting pistol whipped with your own service weapon, I'd imagine.
But really, it's the unarmed part that the media is harping on. Like it makes you less of a threat, or less of a criminal.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The question is when do you cross the threshold from "he might be dangerous" to "he is dangerous" and at what point is the use of lethal force appropriate.
Sometime before getting pistol whipped with your own service weapon, I'd imagine.
But likely sometime after "walking unarmed towards a cop"?
But really, it's the unarmed part that the media is harping on. Like it makes you less of a threat..
Of course being unarmed makes you less of a thread. To pretend otherwise is just ridiculous.
It's the reason why cops will handle someone without any weapons differently than someone with a knife and differently than someone with a gun.
It's the reason why I carry a gun, because if I need to defend myself I am a bigger threat to the bad guy than if I was unarmed.
or less of a criminal.
Being a criminal should NEVER be used as a justification for lethal force, it's the degree of imminent danger a criminal poses that should determine what actions you take, not their status as a criminal.
That's cute, but we're not exactly in a time of civil upheaval. There were half assed riots in two cities, well, one city and one neighborhood.
We live in a nation with at least hundreds of people killed by police a year. There are national stories of maybe a few per year. This shows that for the most part, people are pretty apathetic about police shootings.
Which indicates that, maybe, just maybe, there are reasons some of them make people angrier.
Well, let's look at the ones that have made people angry:
Brown -- Committed a crime, forensics shows attempts to interact with the LEOs firearm. Shameful media representation leads to "half assed" rioting that "only" resulted in around $5M in damages. Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police. Police, according to the video, handle the situation poorly. DuBose - Subject has open warrants and 2lbs of MJ in the car; not sure what the video shows; IMO impossible to tell if the car is moving when the shots are fired or not. Grey - Probably clearest case of police malfeasance.
The link you provided shows a lot of criminals being criminals. The only difference is that the criminals I listed above (Rice wasn't really a criminal, just a stupid kid with bad parents) didn't have working firearms on them.
I'd say this cop getting his ass beat would tend to support the notion that, just because you don't have a firearm, you can still be dangerous.
You forgot the one where the copy shot the guy in the back-while the guy was running away- on video, and then tried to plant part of his taser next to him so he would say they were fighting.
There was also the one very recently where the cop had what appeared to be a negligent discharge into the head of the guy in the car, although he really didn't have a reason to pull the gun to begin with.
d-usa wrote: There was also the one very recently where the cop had what appeared to be a negligent discharge into the head of the guy in the car, although he really didn't have a reason to pull the gun to begin with.
d-usa wrote: There was also the one very recently where the cop had what appeared to be a negligent discharge into the head of the guy in the car, although he really didn't have a reason to pull the gun to begin with.
Was that the university police officer?
I think so.
Claimed that he was being dragged by the car and had another officer back up his story, but the body cam showed that he wasn't dragged and captured what appeared to be a ND.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The question is when do you cross the threshold from "he might be dangerous" to "he is dangerous" and at what point is the use of lethal force appropriate.
Sometime before getting pistol whipped with your own service weapon, I'd imagine.
But really, it's the unarmed part that the media is harping on. Like it makes you less of a threat, or less of a criminal.
I'm all for legally redefining the legal use of deadly force to include ANY physical threat, armed or unarmed, but the problem here is really equality. If a guy my size sucker punches me and I shoot him, as a civilian, I'm still going to jail for murder. Realistically, unless he's got 100 lbs on me, I'm still going to jail. A cop in the same situation? Oh, he's a hero.
That's really the problem here - cops are CIVILIANS and they should be held to the same rules. The incessant boot licking that is so prevalent in the US is permitting the ubiquity of no-knock warrants, murders, etc. by LEOs to go unpunished. And as long as it goes unpunished, it will continue.
d-usa wrote: There was also the one very recently where the cop had what appeared to be a negligent discharge into the head of the guy in the car, although he really didn't have a reason to pull the gun to begin with.
I included him. That's DuBose. It's in my backyard.
Frazz-- I don't really think anyone made that big a deal out of the guy that got shot in the back while running. It got some news time, everyone agreed that cop was a POS, and it was over.
I guess, and this should be obvious, it's the ones where people disagree that there's some discord.
d-usa wrote: There was also the one very recently where the cop had what appeared to be a negligent discharge into the head of the guy in the car, although he really didn't have a reason to pull the gun to begin with.
Was that the university police officer?
I think so.
Claimed that he was being dragged by the car and had another officer back up his story, but the body cam showed that he wasn't dragged and captured what appeared to be a ND.
Claimed that he was being dragged by the car and had another officer back up his story, but the body cam showed that he wasn't dragged and captured what appeared to be a ND.
Like I said; I don't know what the body cam shows. Its a jumbled mess. People claim the car was moving. Others claim it wasn't. Its pretty impossible to see anything on the body cam video, IMO.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
But if you stop repeating it, then you can't victim blame... and what's the fun in that.
As far as DuBose is concerned, I could find one article about him allegedly have marijuana in his car and it's unsurprisingly on Breitbert. Of course, the traffic stop and his shooting have nothing to do with him allegedly having drugs in his car, but let's go ahead and trot that out anyway.
Of course, the traffic stop and his shooting have nothing to do with him allegedly having drugs in his car, but let's go ahead and trot that out anyway.
You're right, they don't. They do, however, potentially inform Dubose's thought process when being pulled over. Neither of which means he should be dead.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
Brandished a real-looking firearm in public and had the police called on him, which did not justify him being shot. I said as much in the previous quote. You deleted that part.
cincydooley wrote: You're right, they don't. They do, however, potentially inform Dubose's thought process when being pulled over. Neither of which means he should be dead.
And yet, here you are listing it as a reason that DuBose was criminal and therefore "dangerous."
cincydooley wrote: You're right, they don't. They do, however, potentially inform Dubose's thought process when being pulled over. Neither of which means he should be dead.
And yet, here you are listing it as a reason that DuBose was criminal and therefore "dangerous."
Looking back on that post, you're right, I worded it very poorly.
He was pulled over for not having his front license plate. He was shot. As I said before, I don't know what the video shows. I can't tell if the car is in motion before or after the shot.
The information I included certainly shows my bias in regards to that case. That's certainly fair to say.
The information I included certainly shows my bias in regards to that case. That's certainly fair to say.
It's a good thing to see in yourself, and we re all affected by our biases. I know mine is fairly obvious.
And it is honestly one of those things that both sides do. That's how we end up with stories that include pictures of whoever died as precious innocent teenagers as well as stories focusing on what a criminal he was, even though neither of those things really have much impact on exactly what happened that lead to the shooting.
cincydooley wrote: You're right, they don't. They do, however, potentially inform Dubose's thought process when being pulled over. Neither of which means he should be dead.
And yet, here you are listing it as a reason that DuBose was criminal and therefore "dangerous."
Looking back on that post, you're right, I worded it very poorly.
He was pulled over for not having his front license plate. He was shot. As I said before, I don't know what the video shows. I can't tell if the car is in motion before or after the shot.
The information I included certainly shows my bias in regards to that case. That's certainly fair to say.
I'm certainly not in this camp that is seeing anything definitive from that video. To me, it's a jumbled mess of nothing. He didn't deserve to be shot, but he also wasn't a boy scout, and, again, I think the drugs in his car probably influenced his interaction with the LEO. None of which changes the fact that, although I'm all for body cams, I just can't tell anything valuable from it here like others seem to be able to.
What I can say is that I think the prosecutor and mayor have handled the situation poorly, but I understand why they've handled it like they have. Last thing we need are riots again.
ANYWAYS-- the key to any of this is reform in the accountability of police officers nationwide. Sadly, I think that reform really does have to start with police union reform before we can make meaningful reform in how we hold LEOs accountable for their actions.
I'm certainly not in this camp that is seeing anything definitive from that video. To me, it's a jumbled mess of nothing. He didn't deserve to be shot, but he also wasn't a boy scout, and, again, I think the drugs in his car probably influenced his interaction with the LEO. None of which changes the fact that, although I'm all for body cams, I just can't tell anything valuable from it here like others seem to be able to.
What I can say is that I think the prosecutor and mayor have handled the situation poorly, but I understand why they've handled it like they have. Last thing we need are riots again.
You know, it's almost if the real world is actually shades of grey instead of black and white... but, you know what they say:
As far as the body cam footage goes, the thing to note is the position of Tensing's SUV when the shot is fired and his position in relation to the silver vehicle in front of DuBose when the stop is initiated. He definitely moved, but it appears to be more because he fatally shot DuBose in the head a couple of seconds after he drew his weapon, causing DuBose to go limp and allow the car to roll down the hill. As the car went out of control and picked up speed, Tensing was unable to to continue to hold on to the door and tumbled to the ground.
I am not a fan of LEO vs civillian because in fact,with the exception of federal police, all other LEOs are civillians. They should be held to the same standard. However if a police officer has to second guess his training there is something wrong. I can't tell you how many times I let the bad guy shoot first, simply because I didn't want to have to deal with the fact that I might go to jail like that lieutenant did who killed the combatants calling for fire on them.
There has to be a point that people understand it is not ok to hit, kick, attempt to take the weapon of an officer. In those instances force should be used. There should be an escalation of force, but force is perfectly acceptable. I am not a fan of tazers however in many instances they save lives. If you attempt such nonsense, and no tazer is issued, you are taking your life into your own hands. Individual responsibility applies to the LEO and the person in the situation. There are rarely victims in life. Learning that makes you a healthier, more functional member of society.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
No, but made a movement towards the gun like he was attempting to draw it. That is a threatening move.
You don't wait till someone brings the gun up and is actually pointing it at you. You drop them before they can get the gun out.
They gave Rice something like two seconds once arriving on the scene before opening fire, let alone issuing orders. The human mind generally doesn't react that quickly in such situations.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
No, but made a movement towards the gun like he was attempting to draw it. That is a threatening move.
You don't wait till someone brings the gun up and is actually pointing it at you. You drop them before they can get the gun out.
They gave Rice something like two seconds once arriving on the scene before opening fire, let alone issuing orders. The human mind generally doesn't react that quickly in such situations.
Even if he didn't hear the command, you don't reach for a gun when the cops are pulling up. Its not they magically appeared right next to him. He most certainly saw them approaching and knew what was up. A smart person doesn't reach for the gun(fake or not) when that is happening.
Grey Templar wrote: Even if he didn't hear the command, you don't reach for a gun when the cops are pulling up. Its not they magically appeared right next to him. He most certainly saw them approaching and knew what was up. A smart person doesn't reach for the gun(fake or not) when that is happening.
I would like to say that it's utterly surprising that the guy who vehemently defends all life as precious is equally quick to blame the shooting death of a 12 year old boy on that same 12 year old boy, going so far as to say he "wasn't smart."
Then I realized that this is Dakka and that would be impossible.
Your life may be precious, but that doesn't preclude you being the cause of your own demise. And this is fairly clear cut. Don't do stupid things that will get you killed.
Don't jump in front of a bus, don't jump into a pen full of lions, don't pull or attempt to pull a gun on police officers, etc... All are on the same level of stupidity.
Grey Templar wrote: Your life may be precious, but that doesn't preclude you being the cause of your own demise. And this is fairly clear cut. Don't do stupid things that will get you killed.
Don't jump in front of a bus, don't jump into a pen full of lions, don't pull or attempt to pull a gun on police officers, etc... All are on the same level of stupidity.
Grey Templar wrote: Your life may be precious, but that doesn't preclude you being the cause of your own demise. And this is fairly clear cut. Don't do stupid things that will get you killed.
Don't jump in front of a bus, don't jump into a pen full of lions, don't pull or attempt to pull a gun on police officers, etc... All are on the same level of stupidity.
The same could be said of cops who kick the doors of innocent, gun owning Americans.
Grey Templar wrote: Your life may be precious, but that doesn't preclude you being the cause of your own demise. And this is fairly clear cut. Don't do stupid things that will get you killed.
Don't jump in front of a bus, don't jump into a pen full of lions, don't pull or attempt to pull a gun on police officers, etc... All are on the same level of stupidity.
The same could be said of cops who kick the doors of innocent, gun owning Americans.
Indeed. Although in that case its the fault of whoever doubled checked where they were supposed to go with a erroneous location, which isn't necessarily the Cop kicking in the door. Thats just an all around gak sandwitch. Police definitely need to double and triple check they're entering the right location.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
No, but made a movement towards the gun like he was attempting to draw it. That is a threatening move.
Now we're having a different argument. This is known as "moving the goalposts".
Much was made over the fact that the BB gun didn't have the required orange plug. That is true. What is also true is that the police officer had no idea it was missing said orange plug, because that part of the BB gun was not visible to the police on the scene.
This nicely brings us back on topic: as Polonius said, there are many police shootings, but only a few draw public outrage, and one of the elements of the ones that do draw outrage, is, among other things, the post hoc shifting of blame onto the victim. Another is when the police are proved to have lied extensively about their actions, as again happened here: the police officer claimed he warned him to put his hands up 3 times, but not only did not a single witness hear a single warning, the tape timeframe clearly indicates this is not possible. And so on, and so forth.
Much has been made of the idea in this and other threads that due to increased media scrutiny, the police are now hesitant to use lethal force for fear of possible prosecution (like that's a bad thing) while people seem to be intentionally missing the point that it was a string of bad shoots that led to the current media attention. Dakka's gonna do what Dakka's gonna do, I guess.
cincydooley wrote: Rice -- Brandished real looking firearm towards police.
This is not in fact what happened, so please stop repeating it.
Not even the police officer who pulled the trigger claims that he pointed it at them.
No, but made a movement towards the gun like he was attempting to draw it. That is a threatening move.
You don't wait till someone brings the gun up and is actually pointing it at you. You drop them before they can get the gun out.
They gave Rice something like two seconds once arriving on the scene before opening fire, let alone issuing orders. The human mind generally doesn't react that quickly in such situations.
Even if he didn't hear the command, you don't reach for a gun when the cops are pulling up. Its not they magically appeared right next to him. He most certainly saw them approaching and knew what was up. A smart person doesn't reach for the gun(fake or not) when that is happening.
He didn't reach for a gun, he was a 12 year old boy with a toy and, according to reports? No, he didn't see them approaching, they drove right up to him, one cop jumped out and shot him.
He didn't reach for a gun, he was a 12 year old boy with a toy and, according to reports? No, he didn't see them approaching, they drove right up to him, one cop jumped out and shot him.
As far as the Cops knew, it was a real gun.
And there is no way you don't notice multiple cars driving up behind you. He would have had to have been deaf and blind not to notice what was going on. Especially considering the behavior that got the cops called in the first place.
Did they get a little too close? Yeah. But that doesn't make them the ones at fault here.
He didn't reach for a gun, he was a 12 year old boy with a toy and, according to reports? No, he didn't see them approaching, they drove right up to him, one cop jumped out and shot him.
As far as the Cops knew, it was a real gun.
And there is no way you don't notice multiple cars driving up behind you. He would have had to have been deaf and blind not to notice what was going on. Especially considering the behavior that got the cops called in the first place.
Clearly you don't remember being 12 years old. I was a total blithering idiot, unaware of just about everything (and not caring about most of what I was aware of) when I was 12 years old. I totally remember playing with toy guns as a kid and not paying any attention to cars, I almost got hit by a car doing exactly that as an idiot kid.
From the behavior of other 12 year olds I've had to bear the company of lately, I don't gather much has changed.
And there is no way you don't notice multiple cars driving up behind you. He would have had to have been deaf and blind not to notice what was going on. Especially considering the behavior that got the cops called in the first place.
Did they get a little too close? Yeah. But that doesn't make them the ones at fault here.
The mental hurdles to perform for this to all be okay in your eyes are truly staggering. And on that note...
He didn't reach for a gun, he was a 12 year old boy with a toy and, according to reports? No, he didn't see them approaching, they drove right up to him, one cop jumped out and shot him.
As far as the Cops knew, it was a real gun.
And there is no way you don't notice multiple cars driving up behind you. He would have had to have been deaf and blind not to notice what was going on. Especially considering the behavior that got the cops called in the first place.
Clearly you don't remember being 12 years old. I was a total blithering idiot, unaware of just about everything (and not caring about most of what I was aware of) when I was 12 years old. I totally remember playing with toy guns as a kid and not paying any attention to cars, I almost got hit by a car doing exactly that as an idiot kid.
From the behavior of other 12 year olds I've had to bear the company of lately, I don't gather much has changed.
He didn't look like 12 year old kid. If you asked me how old he was I would have probably said 16-17.
Its not like they saw some cute little kid with a gun. Look at it from their PoV.
whembly wrote: This is what these police officers are facing...
No, it really isn't. This is one of the biggest piece of gak memes out there. It isn't the 'gotcha' people think it is
An officer has training and discipline (well, supposedly...) in order to handle a situation like that. I don't think the first thing they're supposed to do is start shooting when this happens. But this is either here nor there because that isn't what happened with this shooting.
So, it's not surprise the Tamir incident happened in such a way...
No, it isn't a surprise... but because of that dumb fething meme you posted. Here's why:
Police said that Rice was seated at a table with other people. The video showed that Rice was alone.
Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Rice grab the toy gun and put it in his waistband. This is not supported by the video. Judge Adrine said the video does not show the toy gun in Rice's hands in the moments immediately before as as the zone car approaches.
Police said they got out of the car and told Rice three times to put his hands up but he refused. The video shows Rice being shot almost immediately after Lehmann exits the vehicle.
Police said that Rice then reached into his waistband and pulled out the toy gun, and was then shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann. The video shows that Rice did not pull out the toy gun. In the video, Rice is using both hands to hold his shirt up and expose the pellet gun to view just before he falls to the ground.
Police described the toy gun as looking real and later explained that the neon tip of the toy gun was missing. However the police never saw Rice brandish or point the pistol at them to determine if the orange cap was actually missing or not.
And also this:
Los Angeles Times wrote:According to Loehmann’s personnel records, released by the city of Independence, police officials were in the process of firing him when he resigned in December 2012. Supervisors described an emotionally unstable recruit with a “lack of maturity” and “inability to perform basic functions as instructed” during a weapons training exercise.
In a statement issued Wednesday evening, the Cleveland Police Department said that it had not reviewed Loehmann’s Independence personnel file during his background check. According to Cleveland police spokesman Ali Pillow, detectives interviewed the human resources director for the city of Independence, who told them there were no disciplinary actions or incidents in Loehmann’s file. The manager told detectives Loehmann left because he resigned for personal reasons, Pillow said.
Current policy does not require the department to review previous employers’ personnel files, the department said, but police officials say they are now amending those policies to request such files.
According to a memo sent by Deputy Chief Jim Polak of the Independence Police Department to the city’s human resources manager, Loehmann was visibly “distracted and weepy” during a gun range training course, and could not follow simple directions or communicate clearly.
“His handgun performance was dismal,” read the memo, which called the incident a “dangerous loss of composure.” The training officer took Loehmann’s weapons away and drove with him to pick up some of his other gear, but the officer continued to have an “emotional meltdown,” crying at times as he described relationship problems with his girlfriend to his training sergeant.
In two other incidents, the documents say, Loehmann failed to follow instructions, at one point leaving his gun in an unlocked locker overnight.
“Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions,” the memo reads. “I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."
The department recommended that Loehmann be fired. He decided to resign instead, the memo says.
So if you two want to go and act like "there's nothing different he could have done" or "he's just a dumbass 12 year old kid, oh well," knock yourselves out. You're both terribly wrong.
It wouldn't matter if it was a grown adult built like a lineman holding a firearm, opening fire without any other attempt to diffuse the situation is, at the very least, a gross overreaction. In reality, it's just as bad if it was a adult. That it was a 12 year old, who, no matter how old he looks is still only 12, only made it more incendiary.
Keep in mind the officer in question had been booted from another police force for being hotheaded, and the DOJ has found systemic abused by the Cleveland PD over the last decade or so.
Oh, and the reaction the Cleveland police had to the outrage? They held a parade in support of the police:
That's just a random story, but I could see how people could pick this up and run with it as another example of "cops lives matter" before the whole truth comes out:
(CNN)—A police officer lied when he said somebody shot at his patrol car, causing it to crash and catch fire, said Millis, Massachusetts, police Sgt. William Dwyer on Thursday.
"We have determined that the officer's story was fabricated," Dwyer said. "Specifically that he fired shots at his own cruiser as part of a plan to concoct a story that he was fired upon."
Dwyer said the officer will be prosecuted. He was a dispatcher hired as a part-time officer and was training to become a full-time officer, Dwyer said.
Dwyer said the officer's name won't be released until charges are filed. He didn't say why the officer made up the story.
On Wednesday, the officer reported that a white man in a dark pickup truck fired shots at him, causing his patrol car to spin around, strike a tree and catch fire. The officer said he returned fire.
Police conducted an intensive search with officers from other law enforcement agencies, firefighters, police dogs and a Massachusetts State Police helicopter.
Also on Wednesday, somebody made a threatening call to a local middle school. City schools were locked down for the day and were closed all day Thursday. Police don't know if that threat and the cruiser incident are related.
Millis is a town of about 8,000 people located about 25 miles southwest of Boston.
Good in. I see what you did there.
, I'd contend that this sort of behavior after the fact, with the union whining about the media coverage, shows just how removed cops are from the actual concerns. What if, instead of blaming the current climate for his beating, the cop had claimed that he chose not to use lethal force, in an effort to save lives? The answer is that, odds are, the cop in question will be investigated, not for shooting for the suspect, but for failure to shoot the suspect.
