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.

 d-usa wrote:
For what it's worth, many departments have crap pay and officers rely heavily on overtime to make ends meet. So paid leave with "only" regular pay and the resulting loss of overtime is at least some punishment.

I'm the first guy who will stand up and say that civil servants at the bottom of the rungs don't get paid enough. Teachers. Cops. Social Workers. These people do a lot of important stuff, and their reward is mediocre pay, overloaded labor hours, and the unfortunate positions of being the front line of administration when people are frustrated.

But without a doubt, I think it's absurd in this kind of situation to say "we should wait until the investigation is complete." This isn't a he said she said, or an ambiguous situation where witness statements need to be parsed out. Pretty much every step of this was recorded visually or on audio, and rather plainly at that. Everyone knows what happened. The investigation should be focused on if this is the first time he's gone too far, not whether or not this incident warrants firing. The answer is undoubtedly yes, this incident warrants firing. Unless someone was holding his kid hostage somewhere and threatening their life there really isn't a valid excuse for the conduct.

And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.

The process sucks, but it's the contract the officers and the department (and by extension the public) agrees to. If the contract allows them to suspend without pay in this scenario, then by all means it should be without pay though.

 d-usa wrote:
And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.

I'm not saying charge him with a crime. I'm saying it's been months since this happened. This matter should have been hashed out and shut within a week and the cop given the boot as a result. It's not that complicated. I've had union jobs where people got fired faster than that for insulting customers verbally. Why is he still getting a tax payer funded pay check months later? We should be investigating the people in charge of starting investigations, because jesus do they seem negligent on this one

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And if I facebook live myself shooting someone in the head, I'm still innocent until the jury says I'm not.

I'm not saying charge him with a crime. I'm saying it's been months since this happened. This matter should have been hashed out and shut within a week and the cop given the boot as a result. It's not that complicated. I've had union jobs where people got fired faster than that for insulting customers verbally. Why is he still getting a tax payer funded pay check months later? We should be investigating the people in charge of starting investigations, because jesus do they seem negligent on this one

Most of the time if an employee does a thing to make the company they work for look bad they usually get dropped like its hot. it shouldn't be any different.

Personally dont like him being on pay though i believe they should go through the proper processes of making sure everything happened exactly as it happens instead of knee jerk boots.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
For what it's worth, many departments have crap pay and officers rely heavily on overtime to make ends meet. So paid leave with "only" regular pay and the resulting loss of overtime is at least some punishment.

I'm the first guy who will stand up and say that civil servants at the bottom of the rungs don't get paid enough. Teachers. Cops. Social Workers. These people do a lot of important stuff, and their reward is mediocre pay, overloaded labor hours, and the unfortunate positions of being the front line of administration when people are frustrated.

But without a doubt, I think it's absurd in this kind of situation to say "we should wait until the investigation is complete." This isn't a he said she said, or an ambiguous situation where witness statements need to be parsed out. Pretty much every step of this was recorded visually or on audio, and rather plainly at that. Everyone knows what happened. The investigation should be focused on if this is the first time he's gone too far, not whether or not this incident warrants firing. The answer is undoubtedly yes, this incident warrants firing. Unless someone was holding his kid hostage somewhere and threatening their life there really isn't a valid excuse for the conduct.

One could argue that the investigation should have taken 24 hours. The fact it didn't Start until after the video is unacceptable.

The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

It's certainly moving slowly but at least they're being thorough and have declared that the officers were in the wrong.

Biskupski said that Wednesday’s announcement won’t be the final step in the process. Both officers have 20 days to respond to the allegations, she said.
After the 20-day period, the findings of the investigations will be turned over to Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown, who will use the information to make a decision about the employment of the two officers.

A single violation of company policy can get me canned automatically with no appeal in 20 minutes at the drop of a hat by my immediate boss with the flimsiest of pretexts.

The police can violate half a dozen policies (to say nothing of naked and ope abuse of position/authority and illegal use of force and kidnapping...), have their bosses bosses bosses boss publicly admit and exclaim as much on TV in front of the world, with video evidence no less, and they get 20 days, paid, before their Chief has the opportunity to make a employment decision...

An interesting point to make note of...and a lesson that nobody should forget.

Oh good. Turn the findings over to the thug in charge. I'm 100% sure he will act appropriately to cover the asses of his underlings.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed" Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

Nothing about imposing an illegal search either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken?

Yes.

Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

Did you read it? Cause there's at least three cited provisions directly relating too it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing about imposing an illegal search either.

I assume that Department policies assumes that it goes without saying that doing illegal things isn't allowed, and it isn't really the department's job to punish for them (especially not when they're civil torts rather than criminal violations).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"

So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.

Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...

Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.

Thats not logical. It should be expressly the department's job to punish them.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not logical. It should be expressly the department's job to punish them.

It should be in a perfect world, but then...

We already largely make it the responsibility of police departments to police themselves, and we all see how well that works out; not well. Oversight of law enforcement should be independent of the law enforcement body and directly answerable to outside authority. No organization should ever have the responsibility of investigating and punishing itself. We've seen time and time again how that doesn't work this incident being one of the latest.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"

So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.

Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...

Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.

These are some candy land policies. Have you ever seen cops? I've watched it quite a bit - not only are these policies broken on the regular. They also have a clear way out of the policy when it includes "if allowed or if able" in the policy. Failure to file a report is his only serious offence in the eyes of his department it seems - which is probably something that every officer on the force does regularly. Is that okay? I have a pile of paperwork on my desk right now that I am deliberately ignoring - I probably should be fired for that but you'd have to fire the whole office if that were the case. I'm a little disappointed by this at this point I want people to feel justice was served. We already know he broke the don't be a jerk policy.

But there's no independent authority either.

 Frazzled wrote:
But there's no independent authority either.

Hey, I keep volunteering.

 Frazzled wrote:
But there's no independent authority either.

What is the word on the FBI investigation? Feds and cops hate each other don't they?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not logical. It should be expressly the department's job to punish them.

It should be in a perfect world, but then...

We already largely make it the responsibility of police departments to police themselves, and we all see how well that works out; not well. Oversight of law enforcement should be independent of the law enforcement body and directly answerable to outside authority. No organization should ever have the responsibility of investigating and punishing itself. We've seen time and time again how that doesn't work this incident being one of the latest.

That is jurisdictional dependent. For example, here in North Carolina, the State Bureau of Investigation handles investigations of this nature. We used to call them "The Headhunters". Agencies in this State don't have "internal affairs" divisions.


Also, it isn't always an issue with the agency in question. In jurisdictions where law enforcement is unionized, the police unions sometimes have a part to play in it.


What you propose has it's own set of problems. It's bad enough that cops tend to get thrown to the wolves by politicians, even when they are in the right, to cover their own asses and political careers. Such a third party panel is likely to be staffed with political appointees, "experts" that have no background in law enforcement issues, or people with ideological axes to grind.

As for the Feds, that is a tricky proposition Constitutionally. Truth be told, even if invited, the FBI shouldn't even be involved beyond an advisory/assistance role unless it crosses State lines or involves a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed" Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

You sure you actually read it?
III-030 and III-680.4 are both violations that directly pertain to the arrest.
030 instructs officers to issue citations for misdemeanors and not make arrests without a positive reason for making an arrest. If Payne is guilty of violating 030 and his dept is saying he is, then they are saying that Payne had insufficient cause to arrest Wubbels and should not have done so. Having the police dept. internal investigation declare that Payne should not have arrested Wubbels strikes me as a rather clear statement that the arrest was a breach of policy.
680.4 requires officers to write up a general offense report anytime they forcibly detain and restrain somebody. Cops can't just grab people, put them in handcuffs and detain them arbitrarily and then never report the incident in order to hide it from their superiors. Payne violated policy by making the arrest and then violated policy again by deliberately avoiding reporting the incident. Not reporting a valid arrest that involved restraining and detaining somebody is bad, this isn't like not filling out TPS reports in Office Space, this policy exists to enforce accountability. How can the police department determine if its officers are doing good things or bad things if the officers don't actually report the things they're doing? It's doubly bad when the arrest you don't report was a direct violation of policy, that's a screw up and a cover up.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
What you propose has it's own set of problems

Everything has problems to be overcome, but obviously there are too many instances of cops covering for cops (going back decades now) for people to continue blindly acting like police departments should be handling these things internally.

It's bad enough that cops tend to get thrown to the wolves by politicians, even when they are in the right, to cover their own asses and political careers.

Politicians also cover for police to cover their own asses and political careers, but that that's a less interesting B movie plot.

Such a third party panel is likely to be staffed with political appointees, "experts" that have no background in law enforcement issues,

I'm sure the CIA, military, and every government body that ever fethed up has made the same complaint. My responses in order are; everything is ultimately an ideological/political question once you get down to it, and if you don't want to deal with my "experts" question your conduct I think you're in the wrong line of work.

And that's really about as far as we can go without this becoming US politics

As for the Feds, that is a tricky proposition Constitutionally. Truth be told, even if invited, the FBI shouldn't even be involved beyond an advisory/assistance role unless it crosses State lines or involves a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

I don't think it's a trick proposition as much as unlitigated territory. It's a gray area in constitutional law, and because the Feds have historically only stepped in when things have gotten really heywire there's little desire to fight back from state and local authority so it persists. The Civil Rights Act covers so much ground that pretty much any abuse by police can constitute a violation of it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The next step - Determing that, yes, the officers broke policy.

The Auld Grump

Interesting. Did you actually read these policies that were broken? They are basically policies that amount to "police will be nice and respectful to citizens when allowed"

So...in other words, policies requiring police to act in a professional manner, as civil servants, not thugs. That's not unimportant.

Also, failing filing proper paperwork, arrest handling, and reporting procedures...hard to see why they'd do that...

Holy crap -. Funny I don't see a broken policy involving the arrest. Is the arrest not considered a breach of policy?

Probably not one the mayor is willing to go on TV and admit clear and direct liability to, thats a lot costlier than the other stuff. But yeah, it's amusing to see that not make the list.

These are some candy land policies. Have you ever seen cops?
I've watched it quite a bit - not only are these policies broken on the regular.

Yes, but lets also acknowledge that COPS is sensationalized "reality" TV that cherry picks its subject matter very carefully from selectively chosen partners who desire that kind of publicity, has a not so subtle slant, and is extensively edited and dramatized...and typically focuses almost enirely on dealing with the less...savory elements of society than a nurse in a hospital.

They also have a clear way out of the policy when it includes "if allowed or if able" in the policy.

When you're faced with a noncombative nurse delivering hospital policy in a care facility and workplace, it's rather difficult to seee where they were neither allowed nor able...

We're not talking about some MS13 dude throwing fists and dropping F bombs in 3 different languages. Nobody is going to blame cops for not being perfectly courteous in that situation, however such was not the case here.

Failure to file a report is his only serious offence in the eyes of his department it seems - which is probably something that every officer on the force does regularly. Is that okay? I have a pile of paperwork on my desk right now that I am deliberately ignoring - I probably should be fired for that but you'd have to fire the whole office if that were the case.

When you have to involve senior level officers coming in person, making an arrest and then letting them off when its clear that you were in the wrong, and there's multiple officers and vehicles on location...yeah thats an issue. That's a "lets pretend this never happened to cover our butts" deal.

We're not talking about letting a traffic incident or a minor bar fight slide here, we're talking about an incident at a hospital involving large numbers of command staff and officers and people who regularly interact with officers.

In Portland, Maine, there was a loverly case where two officers beat a suspect, putting him into the hospital... Only to discover that he wasn't even the person that the police were looking for.

The subsequent lawsuit cost the city around half a million dollars.

As a consequence, the police chief of the time - Michael Chitwood - had the officers concerned... declared officers of the year.

Huzzah....

****

The FBI investigation is separate from the two investigations cited in the article - and is the one likely to bring criminal charges in its wake - they are going to be a lot quieter about that one, as it can prejudice the case.

The policies broken are also a little more important than the phraseology makes them sound - and the public nature of their colossal will make it unlikely that their careers will be going anywhere, even if cleared.

That said, I rather hope that they get their hides nailed to the church door....

The Auld Grump

 LordofHats wrote:

Everything has problems to be overcome, but obviously there are too many instances of cops covering for cops (going back decades now) for people to continue blindly acting like police departments should be handling these things internally.

That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".


There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.

Politicians also cover for police to cover their own asses and political careers, but that that's a less interesting B movie plot.

That isn't as common as throwing officers under the bus who are in the right. As a former public employee and law enforcement officer, I can attest to that. The same back "in the day" when my Old Man was a cop.


But go ahead and dismiss what I say off-hand as a B-movie plot because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've embraced.

I'm sure the CIA, military, and every government body that ever fethed up has made the same complaint. My responses in order are; everything is ultimately an ideological/political question once you get down to it, and if you don't want to deal with my "experts" question your conduct I think you're in the wrong line of work.

The military has always lived with such, still handles most things internally, and (as in civilian life) people have been thrown under the bus to cover for the asses of higher-ups and connected. And like your rather silly CIA example, we're talking about apples and oranges here. I'm sure that "The Company" running dope during the war in Southeast Asia, plotting to put LSD in Castro's cigars, and trading arms for hostages is not on the same level as a cop overstepping his authority, and not following proper procedure to obtain blood samples.

And for your snide remark about "your experts", let me clue you in on something. If an "expert" don't know jack melon-fething about something, then they have no goddamned business sitting on some oversight committee pertaining to said issue. And if you are going to deal with something as serious as this, the ideology CAN and SHOULD be left at the door, and working only from facts and the results of investigations. Not from media pressure, personal axes to grind, political agendas, and the so-called "court of public opinion".

If you start putting special interest groups and social science majors in charge of policing (via over scrutiny in matters outside their pay grades), as opposed to criminologists, legal pros, ConLaw experts, and criminal justice majors (to name some examples), that's a good way to gut your police forces. And I can tell you that the political leadership won't pick too many of the latter. They want to be re-elected, or aspire to higher office, after all.

I don't think it's a trick proposition as much as unlitigated territory. It's a gray area in constitutional law, and because the Feds have historically only stepped in when things have gotten really heywire there's little desire to fight back from state and local authority so it persists. The Civil Rights Act covers so much ground that pretty much any abuse by police can constitute a violation of it.

Here is one thing you have said that we can see eye to eye on. Unlitigated is most definately a better term. In our Federalist division of powers, police powers have traditionally resided in the hands of the States. And there was a time that the FBI only got involved in local matters if it garnered headlines, overtime pay, and brownie points for the local branch offices (the same deal with the INS back then). It usually fell to other Federal agencies, if something local fell under some power reserved to the Feds (Constitutional Clauses that tend to get abused anyway), there was a request for assistance, or a violation of Federal law, otherwise. That changed after 9/11 and the restructuring of Federal law enforcement agencies. And since the early 90's, after several high profile Federal screw ups, and local agencies getting too hooked on Federal money due to the failed War of Drugs, most State and many local governments have gotten somewhat leery of Federal "generosity" (which leads to the Feds thinking they can just mosey in any ol' time, stepping on toes and pushing their extra-jurisdictional weight around).

So, they play the smart game. It's EXACTLY how your pointed out. The Feds just wait patiently for spineless local/State politicos to squeal for them to save the day. Or they just step in if public opinion is likely favorable toward such.


And you're absolutely right about the broad nature of the Civil Rights Act. It's usually taken for granted that some sort of discrimination or hate-related crime has to be involved, usually of a racial nature. Because of the generality of the Act, I agree that certain sections of the law can be broadly interpreted, even with all the specific additions since 1965.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
There isn't any real need for your special measures.

Perhaps not. Wouldn't be needed at all if law enforcement showed more willingness to look inward, but we've had a half dozen major investigations over the last decade alone into police departments and they've always found chronic and persistent abuses that were not being dealt with. It is evident that change and reform is overwhelmingly not coming from within and I'm really not keen on civil liberty being subject to a waiting room while offending agencies get their act together.

Because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've embraced.

Same to you

we're talking about apples and oranges here

No we're not. No one likes having others look over their shoulder, but when you're in a position to screw other people over there should always be someone looking over your shoulder. It's as much about keeping the faith and being transparent as it is about punishing people who go to far. The police assuring us that "all is well" is not very assuring, and this is true at all levels of government and social policy. Even if police maintain internal oversights, there should still be external reviews of those processes that are able to step in should things become untenable.

And if you are going to deal with something as serious as this, the ideology CAN and SHOULD be left at the door,

That police should be monitored and abuses punished is at it's core rooted in ideology and political opinion. Things like "transparency is good," "authority should be questioned," and "oversights are important for protecting civil liberties" are all at least partially based in ideological directives. A police officer arrested a nurse for obstructing him is a fact. A police officer arrested a nurse for obstructing him and that is wrong is an opinion based in ideals of civic freedom and political thought.

If you start putting special interest groups and social science majors in charge of policing

It's foolish to ignore special interest groups. You shouldn't listen to them exclusively but you shouldn't ignore them. Especially not while espousing democratic principles like free association and assembly.

as opposed to criminologists, legal pros, ConLaw experts, and criminal justice majors (to name some examples),

I'd point out that all of these positions fall under the banner of the Social Sciences, and I'm curious what experts you think I think should be staffing these things. I just want independent oversight and review which doesn't really require much expertise beyond being able to read a given list of priorities and policies and being familiar with relevant law. It doesn't take much expertise to do that. Just lots of reading and some administrative experience. You brought up experts and you seem to of assumed that I inherently meant something other than people with relevant experience.

That changed after 9/11 and the restructuring of Federal law enforcement agencies.

Well you could see it before that too. Historically speaking federal power has been called in, and forced in, for many reasons. The US government intervened in various ways during Reconstruction to enforce the eras reforms when Southern authority was unwilling to follow through on its own. In the Civil Right's era it was simultaneously brought in to "investigate" "terrorists" like MLK and Malcom X, and to enforce SCOTUS decisions and new legal practices like the CRA itself. During the culture wars it would be called in to do stuff like undermine the Black Panthers and other radical groups deemed threatening. I wouldn't say it's spineless as much as local and state authority is completely willing to get federal help when it suits them, and get annoyed when the feds butt in when it doesn't. Sometimes the feds have been forced to jump in because local and state authority isn't doing things, and they can't resist it simply because "we fethed it up and how dare the feds clean up our mess" is plain bad PR.

So the whole things goes without challenge, particularly because of the nature of the way it happens. Either the feds are being brought in and doing something sleazy, which is usually to the benefit of established political power so why would they complain, or it's been forced in because someone fethed up and complaining would look really bad. I don't think it's nefarious, or at least it isn't anymore nefarious than government is on a typical day. Sometimes its bad sometimes it isn't and when that is oddly enough (not really) really comes down a lot to a question of political ideology. I think we've done fairly well on this front for the most part though cause the Feds aren't super gung ho about jumping in on the first chance they get and generally only get involved at request or when things have become untennable for local authorities. A good example (welp we're here I guess) is the LA riots where no matter how you cut it, local and state authority lost control of the situation and calling in Federal military units might not be pretty but it's a pretty hot debate I think whether the riots could have been quelled without them. So long as federal intervention into these situations remains a fringe result of extreme situations I don't see it as much of a problem.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".


There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.

Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".


There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.

Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.

Payne was wearing a body cam though. It recorded the whole event - interesting we don't see the whole event in any press release. You basically only see the parts they want you to see. The parts that play on your emotions. You don't see the parts where Payne likely calmly explained she was going to be arrested if she didn't stop getting in his way. You don't see the part where the officer yells at Castille 3 times "not to reach for it" and still does anyways because hes stoned out of his mind. You don't see the part where brown is charging a police officer that he just punched through his window - you just see a junior high yearbook photo with lego blocks in the background. You are getting played by professional liars with agendas.

I did see that part with Castillo. It's available and just as incriminating.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


That's because crap like this isn't really that common, considering the amount of interaction that goes on between police and John Q. Public every day. The hype machine and media ratings mongers ensure that it becomes "an epidemic".


There isn't any real need for your special measures. What abuse goes on, it gets handled well enough in most cases by the systems we have in place. The prosecution of officers involved in unjustifiable shootings recently is proof of that. You are going to have hiccups and ball dropping in ANY system (It isn't perfect by any means). But for the most part, it works like it supposed to if people will let it. The issue here is that some among the general public whipped up in a frenzy, grievance industry profiteers, and politically motivated don't want to hear that. Especially if a investigation doesn't go their way.

Horsegak, it does not get handled in house and this very case proves it. It was going to be brushed right under the rug until this video. Officers were more than happy to let this be forgotten, until an outside group said no. The only reason we know about this is because it was privately recorded. Same with Phillando Castille. Same with the cop who shot the man in the back while he was fleeing. You cannot tell me the system is working fine when there are still cops refusing to turn on body cameras or "forgetting" to turn them on. This system is not working for us. It is great for the cops though.

Payne was wearing a body cam though. It recorded the whole event - interesting we don't see the whole event in any press release. You basically only see the parts they want you to see. The parts that play on your emotions. You don't see the parts where Payne likely calmly explained she was going to be arrested if she didn't stop getting in his way. You don't see the part where the officer yells at Castille 3 times "not to reach for it" and still does anyways because hes stoned out of his mind. You don't see the part where brown is charging a police officer that he just punched through his window - you just see a junior high yearbook photo with lego blocks in the background. You are getting played by professional liars with agendas.

lol, did you just say "stoned out of his mind."? I bet you think Marijuana is a dangerous drug.

See, these all are things we did not see until the public had its own video. We would have never seen the Castillo body cam, had it not been for the FB livestream of him being murdered

Also, there was no calmly explaining to the nurse she would be arrested if she continued to get in his way. Because it is her job and duty as a healthcare professional to stop him from doing this. I don't know how many times I can explain that to you.

You just don't know what you are talking about and you have formed your own narrative of the situation because of "professional liars with agendas." You have little knowledge of the law involved in this and the policies. You are the perfect "low information voter" in this scenario.