Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cleveland Police Officer Timothy Loehmann resigned from another police job after a supervisor described him as "distracted and weepy" and "emotionally immature."

Records from the Independence Police Department obtained by CNN include comments from a supervisor detailing what they called "a pattern of lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions," a "dangerous loss of composure during live range training" and an "inability to manage personal stress."

"I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies," Independence Deputy Chief Jim Polak wrote in a November 2012 memo.

Ok, fine. Now lets see Deputy Chief Jim Polak's HR file to see if there is any complaints of bullying and harassment against him, because those statements don't sound very professional. They sound more like the words of a bullying manager without further context.

This just seems like muck racking and the press finding information that supports their view, no matter what.

"Ptl. Loehmann's inability to perform basic functions as instructed, and his inability to emotionally function because of a personal situation at home with an on and off again girlfriend leads one to believe that he would not be able to substantially cope, or make good decisions, during or resulting from any other stressful situation," Polok wrote.

Another memo from a sergeant who worked with Loehmann at a shooting range described the officer as "distracted," "not fit to return" after an emotional outburst and someone who was "not following simple instructions."

Could be that he was not able to cope, or that he was someone in a very difficult personal situation with a bullying manager.

I feel like at this point you are just making up an imaginary story in your head to bend the facts to your preferred narrative.

 Ouze wrote:
I feel like at this point you are just making up an imaginary story in your head to bend the facts to your preferred narrative.

Actually Ouze, Stevenson brings up a valid point. The comments noted by the former supervisor uses fairly biased and unprofessional language.
As read, it describes an all to common problem that managers and supervisors have to deal with. The problem of disruption in an employee's personal/ romantic life affecting their job performance.

Am personally and currently dealing with an employee who is normally exceptionally professional. Yet, has fallen into a very dis-functional relationship that has caused him to lose focus and professionalism.
Am I going to fire him?
"No"
What am I going to do?
" Notate the issue and then counsel/require that he goes to a mental health care professional that specializes in relationship/couples therapy."

Point is, "Where is list of corrective actions that the supervisor should have taken before moving to termination?"

I've gotta now ask....
"Do you really want to argue for the banning of men/women from holding various public service jobs because, at some point, they go through a nasty relationship that hurts their job performance?".

Later,
ff

I feel you are making up an imagined story in your head to bend the facts you your narrative. I'm not the one going out and finding bits of hearsay and gossip without context. CNN found that information without further investigation, to support their narrative. I have just questioned the validity and relevance of those "facts".

All I have done is ask for proof that those are valid statements rather than an attempt to present someones opinion as facts, and have stated as such. Or are you saying that it is not possible that the one source of these statements could not have been someone unprofessional? Or do we now dismiss the possibility that the one source of this may have been biased because it does not fit your view?

 Ouze wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
In related news, apparently Cleveland Cops are terrible in general!

Department of Justice has cited 600 cases of excessive force by Cleveland cops.

So um... glad I live in a suburb

Yeah I read that too. I should have posted there here as well as it definitely gives context to how the shooting happened.

Agreed. It helps to show a pattern and practice, culture of occupier vs. agent of the community.

 Chongara wrote:
He's an unstable maniac with no place on the force! And that maniac made best call any cop ever has, clearly, unquestionable and unambiguously the right call and we can say that with no need to analyze the events further. Give that madman a commendation. Then fire him because he clearly can't make level-headed decisions, except when he's doing that perfectly.

Exalted.

What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

Well, some of them are completely justifiable, some are unfortunate circumstances creating a perfectly bad situation, and some are just fethed up.


This Cleveland cop is falling further down the unfortunate circumstances "hole"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

Well, some of them are completely justifiable, some are unfortunate circumstances creating a perfectly bad situation, and some are just fethed up.


This Cleveland cop is falling further down the unfortunate circumstances "hole"

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

Go do some reading and get back to us. Otherwise your posts here just seem like trolling.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

In the specific case I was alluding to... Said "unarmed" person attempted to take and presumably use a police officers firearm against him, and was also in the process of beating the officer.

In the Cleveland case, as I said earlier, was a set of seriously unfortunate circumstances.... Basically, the police were called due to a "firearm" being used to threaten people by a kid. The fact that the "firearm" was an airsoft or some other "fake" firearm cannot have any bearing into looking at the situation, because as the officers responded to the call, they have no real way of knowing whether it's real or fake. (we went round in circles on this one in the previous Cleveland thread)


Obviously, for this Cleveland situation, new information is coming out that, while it doesn't really change things, it does make some slight alterations, because we now have a different image of the shooting officer.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

Well, some of them are completely justifiable, some are unfortunate circumstances creating a perfectly bad situation, and some are just fethed up.


This Cleveland cop is falling further down the unfortunate circumstances "hole"

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

Come on, we all know anyone who takes out the Sham Wow guy on cable entirely justifiable.

 Ouze wrote:
Why break it down at all? Almost every time the TSA has practices for locating contraband, they miss 9/10 of whatever they're supposed to be catching.

Reminds me of the my dad's story when he was rushing back from Iraq, grabbed a random bag and tossed some clothes in it, and when he got home and opened it found 9mm ammo, a bayonet, and hand grenades inside. But don't worry. Airport security totally nailed him for that nail clipper!

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

Well, some of them are completely justifiable, some are unfortunate circumstances creating a perfectly bad situation, and some are just fethed up.


This Cleveland cop is falling further down the unfortunate circumstances "hole"

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

Because a person doesn't always have to be armed to present a deadly threat.

 Hordini wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What is with the US lately and police there murdering unarmed people?

Well, some of them are completely justifiable, some are unfortunate circumstances creating a perfectly bad situation, and some are just fethed up.


This Cleveland cop is falling further down the unfortunate circumstances "hole"

how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

Because a person doesn't always have to be armed to present a deadly threat.

Everyone is born with two armes

(except people with defects......and double amputees)

Honestly though his past makes no difference to the fact that it was still the right call.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
how is shooting and killing an unarmed person ever justifiable?

If the officer is convinced the person is a threat he can justify shooting. Say, someone carrying what looks like a gun who has been pointing it at people. Or an unarmed (but vicious) person beating up other unarmed people? Or sometimes even the assumption that someone is trying to draw a weapon.

That said it is very harsh compared to our more laid-back police. Stopping the car, jumping out and shooting the guy within two seconds? Few people would claim to have a good picture of the situation at that point. My local policemen most likely wouldn't even bring out a gun unless the suspect had already fired shots or was pointing his weapon at someone right then. But we also have less violent crime and fewer armed criminals. US policemen have to constantly remember that many of the officers killed on the job were either surprised (and never had time to fire back) or were even killed with their own gun.

 Frazzled wrote:

Agreed. It helps to show a pattern and practice, culture of occupier vs. agent of the community.

Scruffied.

I think the best thing that can come of this is an investigation of the practices of Cleveland police. Merely going after the officer lets the department, and associated institutions (including the community itself), off the hook.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Agreed. It helps to show a pattern and practice, culture of occupier vs. agent of the community.

Scruffied.

I think the best thing that can come of this is an investigation of the practices of Cleveland police. Merely going after the officer lets the department, and associated institutions (including the community itself), off the hook.

I think it's not just cleveland police.




And again



It's being going on for years

CarefuL Loki
You might start a youtube bash

 Desubot wrote:


Everyone is born with two arms

(except people with defects......and double amputees)

Um.... just wanted to point out. Most double amputees were born with 2 arms

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


Everyone is born with two arms

(except people with defects......and double amputees)

Um.... just wanted to point out. Most double amputees were born with 2 arms

Friday night
Give him some lee way there

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


Everyone is born with two arms

(except people with defects......and double amputees)

Um.... just wanted to point out. Most double amputees were born with 2 arms

Dangit

They should just do what they did in Georgia, scrap the police force entirely and just start again from scratch. It'll never happen but hell maybe it would solve some of these entrenched problems.

The actual memo is here, if you'd like to read it. The cop in question stated he had a good working relationship with the sergeant who reported these issues.

(It's page 56, so scroll all the way to the end and then back up a few pages)

I read a fascinating and related study today about the efficacy of orange plugs on toy/replica firearms. Many posters pointed out that the child who was shot was at least partially responsible for his own death because he had removed the legally required orange tip from the BB gun.

Well, it turns out that probably didn't make any difference. I'll summarize: there was an experiment done in which a control group of police officers were to be on a test patrol, and if they felt they were in danger, they were to "defend themselves" with a (deactivated) revolver. They then encountered someone who pointed a (fake) gun at them, starting with a accurate replica without an orange tip, then with the required blaze orange tip, then an orange stripe, then a white gun, and so on, all the way down to a clear green plastic water gun.

When the gun was an accurate black replica without the orange tip, unsurprisingly the police officer "fired" their weapon 98% of the time at both 15 and 30 feet encounters.

What was surprising (to me) was that when the same encounter happened with the lawful blaze orange tip, the police still fired 97% of the time at 15 feet / 95% at 30 feet.

The most obviously fake gun still had the police use simulated deadly force 15% of the time at 15 feet and a whopping 45% of the time at 30 feet.



So, like I said, interesting to know. If you have kids maybe don't let them play with toy guns of any color.

 Ouze wrote:
I read a fascinating and related study today about the efficacy of orange plugs on toy/replica firearms. Many posters pointed out that the child who was shot was at least partially responsible for his own death because he had removed the legally required orange tip from the BB gun.

Well, it turns out that probably didn't make any difference. I'll summarize: there was an experiment done in which a control group of police officers were to be on a test patrol, and if they felt they were in danger, they were to "defend themselves" with a (deactivated) revolver. They then encountered someone who pointed a (fake) gun at them, starting with a accurate replica without an orange tip, then with the required blaze orange tip, then an orange stripe, then a white gun, and so on, all the way down to a clear green plastic water gun.

When the gun was an accurate black replica without the orange tip, unsurprisingly the police officer "fired" their weapon 98% of the time at both 15 and 30 feet encounters.

What was surprising (to me) was that when the same encounter happened with the lawful blaze orange tip, the police still fired 97% of the time at 15 feet / 95% at 30 feet.

The most obviously fake gun still had the police use simulated deadly force 15% of the time at 15 feet and a whopping 45% of the time at 30 feet.



So, like I said, interesting to know. If you have kids maybe don't let them play with toy guns of any color.

Just wanted to point something out

... you should just say whatever it is you want to say.

 Ouze wrote:
... you should just say whatever it is you want to say.

Bolded and highlighted but key word is "tip"

... ok.

I'm not following you Jihadin... o.O