My agency has, thus far in 16, responded to over 200,000 calls for service. We have shot 1 person, and he was a fugitive that fired first while using someone as a human shield.
However! The state of law enforcement in the US sucks and I can understand the viewpoint of never call the police. I don't agree, but I can understand.
I don't know where I was going with this.
I would love to know your agencies policies and training protocols on use of force.
2 people I missed one.
I can't really toss out the use of force SOP but in general we have a very aggressive IA. But, we have our fair share of racist tough guys as well. This far the command staff has been aggressive enough to combat it.
Realistically tho, with how policing is in the US, every agency is moments away from a Charlotte or Tulsa situation. It's a toxic culture.
basically: if you're a poor white person you think the cops are always out to get you and trap you with some kind of fucking fine or arrest, you're an easy source of revenue for the PD
if you're poor and black you also have to worry about them murdering you
Follow up. The culture in police with IA is horrible. They portrayal of IA as couldnt cut it cops "out to get" the heroes for infractions is disgusting but accurate in how most cops views them.
The lesson is unless you are under lethal threat from a family member, and sometimes not even then, don't call the police. LE will almost always escalate and almost always make it worse.
This isn't true, and hysterical proclamations like this will make people tune out when you have something accurate to say.
A lesson is what people are taught, not what is true.
And you feel no ethical compulsion to tell the truth?
i think the point was more that folks under certain sets of circumstances are taught through experience that it isn't safe to call the cops, that they will frequently make things worse, whether or not that's true across the board for everyone
No, I get that. I'm saying that the preceding posts made it sound like what you should take away from the situation is "never call the cops", even though he later acknowledged that this is not necessarily the truth. That's backwards.
Follow up. The culture in police with IA is horrible. They portrayal of IA as couldnt cut it cops "out to get" the heroes for infractions is disgusting but accurate in how most cops views them.
Good IA helps maintain public trust and certainly helps keep criminals from getting an attorney to leverage Police Policy infractions into an acquittal. Or failure to indict.
That cops hate IA is not surprising, it is exactly the same as people's animosity against hall monitors, IRS, or police.
The lesson is unless you are under lethal threat from a family member, and sometimes not even then, don't call the police. LE will almost always escalate and almost always make it worse.
This isn't true, and hysterical proclamations like this will make people tune out when you have something accurate to say.
A lesson is what people are taught, not what is true.
And you feel no ethical compulsion to tell the truth?
i think the point was more that folks under certain sets of circumstances are taught through experience that it isn't safe to call the cops, that they will frequently make things worse, whether or not that's true across the board for everyone
No, I get that. I'm saying that the preceding posts made it sound like what you should take away from the situation is "never call the cops", even though he later acknowledged that this is not necessarily the truth. That's backwards.
What people should or should not take away from it is a sidetrack. What's damaging lawenforcement's perceived legitimacy and ability to enforce law is what people do take away from it.
+5
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
The lesson is unless you are under lethal threat from a family member, and sometimes not even then, don't call the police. LE will almost always escalate and almost always make it worse.
This isn't true, and hysterical proclamations like this will make people tune out when you have something accurate to say.
A lesson is what people are taught, not what is true.
And you feel no ethical compulsion to tell the truth?
i think the point was more that folks under certain sets of circumstances are taught through experience that it isn't safe to call the cops, that they will frequently make things worse, whether or not that's true across the board for everyone
No, I get that. I'm saying that the preceding posts made it sound like what you should take away from the situation is "never call the cops", even though he later acknowledged that this is not necessarily the truth. That's backwards.
What people should or should not take away from it is a sidetrack. What's damaging lawenforcement's perceived legitimacy and ability to enforce law is what people do take away from it.
You're changing the subject.
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
The lesson is unless you are under lethal threat from a family member, and sometimes not even then, don't call the police. LE will almost always escalate and almost always make it worse.
This isn't true, and hysterical proclamations like this will make people tune out when you have something accurate to say.
A lesson is what people are taught, not what is true.
And you feel no ethical compulsion to tell the truth?
i think the point was more that folks under certain sets of circumstances are taught through experience that it isn't safe to call the cops, that they will frequently make things worse, whether or not that's true across the board for everyone
No, I get that. I'm saying that the preceding posts made it sound like what you should take away from the situation is "never call the cops", even though he later acknowledged that this is not necessarily the truth. That's backwards.
What people should or should not take away from it is a sidetrack. What's damaging lawenforcement's perceived legitimacy and ability to enforce law is what people do take away from it.
It's important because the law isn't supported by an extensive enough surveillance-infrastucture to function without snitching. Police, even when blameless, can't afford to abandon inspiring some degree of cooperation, because the system relies on it, and their work can't be done without it.
Where nothing is reported, the rule of law is ineffective. Bad apples are not negligible, and not a non-problem. Playing the antagonist in uniform makes the uniform the antagonist, crippling its performance.
It's important because the law isn't supported by an extensive enough surveillance-infrastucture to function without snitching. Police, even when blameless, can't afford to abandon inspiring some degree of cooperation, because the system relies on it, and their work can't be done without it.
Where nothing is reported, the rule of law is ineffective. Bad apples are not negligible, and not a non-problem. Playing the antagonist in uniform makes the uniform the antagonist, crippling its performance.
There was a murder in Seward park in Seattle that got everyone's dander up because the victim beat a Seahawk player about the head with a street sign/pole earlier that night.
Through the police fostering relationships with the community, they were able to track down the man's killer and elicit a confession.
The victim had shot another man at an earlier point in time. Driving through the park, he encountered his future killer and bragged about the shooting. The man the victim was bragging to was the older sibling of the victim of the previous shooting.
Again, this complicated bit of reality was resolved due to police outreach and ties to the community.
It's important because the law isn't supported by an extensive enough surveillance-infrastucture to function without snitching. Police, even when blameless, can't afford to abandon inspiring some degree of cooperation, because the system relies on it, and their work can't be done without it.
Where nothing is reported, the rule of law is ineffective. Bad apples are not negligible, and not a non-problem. Playing the antagonist in uniform makes the uniform the antagonist, crippling its performance.
There was a murder in Seward park in Seattle that got everyone's dander up because the victim beat a Seahawk player about the head with a street sign/pole earlier that night.
Through the police fostering relationships with the community, they were able to track down the man's killer and elicit a confession.
The victim had shot another man at an earlier point in time. Driving through the park, he encountered his future killer and bragged about the shooting. The man the victim was bragging to was the older sibling of the victim of the previous shooting.
Again, this complicated bit of reality was resolved due to police outreach and ties to the community.
The police require both to do their jobs. Snitches isn't just to gather information, it's to get people to infiltrate groups and record confessions.
I'm pretty much with NSDFRand on the "not calling the cops almost ever" thing. Someone posted a video on the last page where a guy said he wouldn't call if he learned that he was living next to a serial killer. That's pretty extreme (I would definitely call in such an instance), but it's a good example in that it demonstrates the level of danger that would be required to get people like me to make such a phone call.
Maybe it is partly irrational. I've been arrested a couple times and have had to run away on foot a couple times (turns out escaping a cop is significantly easier than running a 10k, especially if you live in a wooded area), and I've heard enough anecdotes from others and seen enough horrible videos that the sight of a police car/officer immediately makes me uneasy. Perhaps this bias would prevent me from calling in some situations where calling actually would be a good idea in terms of my personal safety. But even though I live in a state with very low levels of police violence and imprisonment, I am quite simply scared of them. When you perceive police as armed bullies it takes a lot to persuade you to voluntarily invite them to your home.
My history is fear, rage, and isolation. So much so that I see no difference between police and strangers in the streets. All are threats in my eyes and if I die, I die being the nice bastard they do not want me to be.
So spite and fatalism.
But that is my data and my interpretation of that data, both of which are different from my siblings who have had their own interactions with fellow citizens that differ from mine own.
That said, police officers who work hard to provide good data and change the future need to not fear what happened in Oregon happening to them and their families, and that comes from public support and the mayor's office not wishing the racist chief, "good luck with the fishing."
Edit: LAPD, kills another black male. So either this one is one example of police when conducted with honor and is weighed down by the incident earlier in the week, or...
It's an example of police conducting themselves in a dishonorable fashion and further compounds the earlier incident.
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
He's acting like it's double jeopardy when it's clearly not.
Losing your job is not a criminal conviction!
Am I just saying things that are completely obvious right now?
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
He's acting like it's double jeopardy when it's clearly not.
Losing your job is not a criminal conviction!
Am I just saying things that are completely obvious right now?
Yeah, you are. The DA apparently thinks the guy losing his job is enough "justice" and won't be seeking anything further because of that.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
He's acting like it's double jeopardy when it's clearly not.
Losing your job is not a criminal conviction!
Am I just saying things that are completely obvious right now?
Yeah, you are. The DA apparently thinks the guy losing his job is enough "justice" and won't be seeking anything further because of that.
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
He's acting like it's double jeopardy when it's clearly not.
Losing your job is not a criminal conviction!
Am I just saying things that are completely obvious right now?
Yeah, you are. The DA apparently thinks the guy losing his job is enough "justice" and won't be seeking anything further because of that.
That...
...
...how the fuck?
*throws random objects*
It's due to the relationship between law enforcement and the DA's office. Similar to elected executives and LE. "Law and Order" politics are strong in the US, so you will almost never see meaningful criticism of LE in the US. It's part of the very popular mindset of "you're pro law enforcement or you're pro criminal".
The DA angering the police can cause the DA problems regardless of how justified whatever the DA does that pisses off the police.
There needs to be a way to solve this, or nothing is going to change.
edit: Pissing off the DA wouldn't necessarily be good for the police long term, since they require the DA to put the people they want in prison.
Do they? Their jobs don't rely on that the same way a DA's does. A DA needs convictions; a police officer just needs arrests/tickets.
They can't arrest everybody and put them in their local jail, this also applies to anyone who gets jailed for not paying tickets. The people have to go somewhere.
The DA angering the police can cause the DA problems regardless of how justified whatever the DA does that pisses off the police.
There needs to be a way to solve this, or nothing is going to change.
edit: Pissing off the DA wouldn't necessarily be good for the police long term, since they require the DA to put the people they want in prison.
Do they? Their jobs don't rely on that the same way a DA's does. A DA needs convictions; a police officer just needs arrests/tickets.
They can't arrest everybody and put them in their local jail, this also applies to anyone who gets jailed for not paying tickets. The people have to go somewhere.
? They don't have to put them in jail. They just have to arrest them. Those are the only stats that get looked at. They could literally arrest them and turn them back on the streets an hour later; that'd still help them keep their jobs. (Also, we could just build a lot of for-profit prisons! No problem!)
The DA angering the police can cause the DA problems regardless of how justified whatever the DA does that pisses off the police.
There needs to be a way to solve this, or nothing is going to change.
edit: Pissing off the DA wouldn't necessarily be good for the police long term, since they require the DA to put the people they want in prison.
Do they? Their jobs don't rely on that the same way a DA's does. A DA needs convictions; a police officer just needs arrests/tickets.
They can't arrest everybody and put them in their local jail, this also applies to anyone who gets jailed for not paying tickets. The people have to go somewhere.
? They don't have to put them in jail. They just have to arrest them. Those are the only stats that get looked at. They could literally arrest them and turn them back on the streets an hour later; that'd still help them keep their jobs. (Also, we could just build a lot of for-profit prisons! No problem!)
I think even the worst police are less concerned about stats than they are having to repeatedly arrest the same people for the same crime.
The DA angering the police can cause the DA problems regardless of how justified whatever the DA does that pisses off the police.
There needs to be a way to solve this, or nothing is going to change.
edit: Pissing off the DA wouldn't necessarily be good for the police long term, since they require the DA to put the people they want in prison.
Do they? Their jobs don't rely on that the same way a DA's does. A DA needs convictions; a police officer just needs arrests/tickets.
They can't arrest everybody and put them in their local jail, this also applies to anyone who gets jailed for not paying tickets. The people have to go somewhere.
? They don't have to put them in jail. They just have to arrest them. Those are the only stats that get looked at. They could literally arrest them and turn them back on the streets an hour later; that'd still help them keep their jobs. (Also, we could just build a lot of for-profit prisons! No problem!)
I think even the worst police are less concerned about stats than they are having to repeatedly arrest the same people for the same crime.
As a police officer, I don't lose my job if I keep arresting the same person over and over again, because the DA's not cooperating with me (or if the jails are full, or whatever).
As a DA, I do lose my job if I don't get convictions, because the police is not cooperating with me.
I honestly don't know what else you two are talking about. I'm just pointing out, one of them needs the other more than the other way around.
~12, was 9 cops and 109 rounds of ammo apparently. Probably close to a full magazine from everyone (think they are 15 round magazines? Could be wrong.)
Police said Sowell snapped Wednesday evening, choked his daughter, stabbed his young son and a friend and then assaulted a woman and slit the throat of a elderly neighbor after barging into her home.
e:
Supposedly 17 rounds per mag. Police were told he had already shot two people, but turned out he had just stabbed them instead. The cops ended up hitting two houses with their missed fire.
Granted, this fellow had attacked five people, but why it took so many missed rounds for one person is a major issue.
It's a training issue. Part of it is quality (non LEO civilian shooting classes/schools teach more, and better, than most LE training programs) and part of it is quantity (the vast majority of an individual LEOs time on the job doesn't involve using a firearm unless they are on a tactical team full time, annual qualification for most agencies is also garbage).
There was an incident in Brooklyn (I think) about ten years ago of some cops shooting at some black guys in their car. Something like fifty shots fired and one of the officers emptied his gun, reloaded, emptied it again, reloaded, and fired a few more shots.
I can never seem to remember the name if the incident, but it was a pretty big deal. The guys left a night club after a kind-of-sort-of fight. The cops showed up and killed two of them because they were going to their car to get a gun. Which I think didn't exist, of course.
Historically, in spite of any training, the police are quite dangerous when it comes to gun safety.
There was an incident in Brooklyn (I think) about ten years ago of some cops shooting at some black guys in their car. Something like fifty shots fired and one of the officers emptied his gun, reloaded, emptied it again, reloaded, and fired a few more shots.
I can never seem to remember the name if the incident, but it was a pretty big deal. The guys left a night club after a kind-of-sort-of fight. The cops showed up and killed two of them because they were going to their car to get a gun. Which I think didn't exist, of course.
Historically, in spite of any training, the police are quite dangerous when it comes to gun safety.
There was another incident outside the wtc area in the daytime where this mentality focused on a man with a knife and injured a number of citizens in the background.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Or the time a car that an older couple were driving backfired and cops shot up the car, with one of the cops running up to jump on the hood and shoot the occupants point blank.
On the matter of police and public policy, here's a real good head-scratcher for you.
Fair warning, this will cause your brain to try to turn itself inside attempting to understand a judicial ruling.
First link: Cop unsuccessfully sues department for releasing a video of him beating a handcuffed suspect. His theory is that if the truth of the matter is out for the world to see, he's going to have a hard time finding employment and that's a violation of his rights.
The thing that caught my eye was the following part:
Denton was fired in 2011 on allegations that he violated the department's excessive force rules. An arbitrator reinstated the officer a year later, ordering him to be given back pay and benefits totaling $283,000. Next, a Tulsa judge concluded that reinstatement would pose a "special risk of injury, physical and psychological, to citizens and, if he is allowed reinstatement, the department will be faced with explaining why Owasso allows abusive conduct by its officers, which is against the law." An Oklahoma appeals panel reversed this decision, and the state's Supreme Court declined to intervene—meaning that Denton returned to his job in 2014 with back pay plus $47,000 in overtime and $36,000 in interest, according to the Tulsa World.
Me being curious about the opinion of the appeal's court, sought out a explanation as to where the trial judge went wrong in interpreting the law. This bring us to this fun article: Linkage.
The relevant part:
Presiding Judge Larry Joplin wrote the majority opinion for the appellate court.
"We hold the cited criminal statutes establish no public policy impediment to enforcement of the arbitrator's decision setting aside Denton's termination and reinstating him to the employment," Joplin wrote. "The trial court erred in vacating the arbitrator's decision as contrary to public policy."
And thus my brain start to tear itself apart attempting to understand how a law, actually a CRIMINAL STATUTE, is not an establishment of public policy by the legislature. This seems fairly clear to me. The state has said "Don't do this" or more importantly, "We don't want our employees doing this. This makes us look bad." But it doesn't end there. In yet another case of a court deferring to arbitration, the same judge further opined,
The parties clearly bargained for an arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA, and so long as the arbitrator remained true to the essence of the agreement, his decision should not be disturbed.
That's right. Don't worry that the law applies to LEOs as long as they bargained for a get out everything card through binding arbitration.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
On the matter of police and public policy, here's a real good head-scratcher for you.
Fair warning, this will cause your brain to try to turn itself inside attempting to understand a judicial ruling.
First link: Cop unsuccessfully sues department for releasing a video of him beating a handcuffed suspect. His theory is that if the truth of the matter is out for the world to see, he's going to have a hard time finding employment and that's a violation of his rights.
The thing that caught my eye was the following part:
Denton was fired in 2011 on allegations that he violated the department's excessive force rules. An arbitrator reinstated the officer a year later, ordering him to be given back pay and benefits totaling $283,000. Next, a Tulsa judge concluded that reinstatement would pose a "special risk of injury, physical and psychological, to citizens and, if he is allowed reinstatement, the department will be faced with explaining why Owasso allows abusive conduct by its officers, which is against the law." An Oklahoma appeals panel reversed this decision, and the state's Supreme Court declined to intervene—meaning that Denton returned to his job in 2014 with back pay plus $47,000 in overtime and $36,000 in interest, according to the Tulsa World.
Me being curious about the opinion of the appeal's court, sought out a explanation as to where the trial judge went wrong in interpreting the law. This bring us to this fun article: Linkage.
The relevant part:
Presiding Judge Larry Joplin wrote the majority opinion for the appellate court.
"We hold the cited criminal statutes establish no public policy impediment to enforcement of the arbitrator's decision setting aside Denton's termination and reinstating him to the employment," Joplin wrote. "The trial court erred in vacating the arbitrator's decision as contrary to public policy."
And thus my brain start to tear itself apart attempting to understand how a law, actually a CRIMINAL STATUTE, is not an establishment of public policy by the legislature. This seems fairly clear to me. The state has said "Don't do this" or more importantly, "We don't want our employees doing this. This makes us look bad." But it doesn't end there. In yet another case of a court deferring to arbitration, the same judge further opined,
The parties clearly bargained for an arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA, and so long as the arbitrator remained true to the essence of the agreement, his decision should not be disturbed.
That's right. Don't worry that the law applies to LEOs as long as they bargained for a get out everything card through binding arbitration.
Posts
2 people I missed one.
I can't really toss out the use of force SOP but in general we have a very aggressive IA. But, we have our fair share of racist tough guys as well. This far the command staff has been aggressive enough to combat it.
Realistically tho, with how policing is in the US, every agency is moments away from a Charlotte or Tulsa situation. It's a toxic culture.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Can I transmit this brilliance to other people?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
No, I get that. I'm saying that the preceding posts made it sound like what you should take away from the situation is "never call the cops", even though he later acknowledged that this is not necessarily the truth. That's backwards.
Good IA helps maintain public trust and certainly helps keep criminals from getting an attorney to leverage Police Policy infractions into an acquittal. Or failure to indict.
That cops hate IA is not surprising, it is exactly the same as people's animosity against hall monitors, IRS, or police.
What people should or should not take away from it is a sidetrack. What's damaging lawenforcement's perceived legitimacy and ability to enforce law is what people do take away from it.
You're changing the subject.
No he's not.
The perception of a police shooting is equally important to the shooting itself when it matches an extremely large pattern of violence.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Where nothing is reported, the rule of law is ineffective. Bad apples are not negligible, and not a non-problem. Playing the antagonist in uniform makes the uniform the antagonist, crippling its performance.
There was a murder in Seward park in Seattle that got everyone's dander up because the victim beat a Seahawk player about the head with a street sign/pole earlier that night.
Through the police fostering relationships with the community, they were able to track down the man's killer and elicit a confession.
The victim had shot another man at an earlier point in time. Driving through the park, he encountered his future killer and bragged about the shooting. The man the victim was bragging to was the older sibling of the victim of the previous shooting.
Again, this complicated bit of reality was resolved due to police outreach and ties to the community.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
The police require both to do their jobs. Snitches isn't just to gather information, it's to get people to infiltrate groups and record confessions.
Maybe it is partly irrational. I've been arrested a couple times and have had to run away on foot a couple times (turns out escaping a cop is significantly easier than running a 10k, especially if you live in a wooded area), and I've heard enough anecdotes from others and seen enough horrible videos that the sight of a police car/officer immediately makes me uneasy. Perhaps this bias would prevent me from calling in some situations where calling actually would be a good idea in terms of my personal safety. But even though I live in a state with very low levels of police violence and imprisonment, I am quite simply scared of them. When you perceive police as armed bullies it takes a lot to persuade you to voluntarily invite them to your home.
So spite and fatalism.
But that is my data and my interpretation of that data, both of which are different from my siblings who have had their own interactions with fellow citizens that differ from mine own.
That said, police officers who work hard to provide good data and change the future need to not fear what happened in Oregon happening to them and their families, and that comes from public support and the mayor's office not wishing the racist chief, "good luck with the fishing."
Edit: LAPD, kills another black male. So either this one is one example of police when conducted with honor and is weighed down by the incident earlier in the week, or...
It's an example of police conducting themselves in a dishonorable fashion and further compounds the earlier incident.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article105525491.html#fmp
And what the hell? Can someone with a better grasp of the legal system please explain this, because it sounds really, really bad and shitty and corrupt to my layman brain.
The Greensboro City Council voted unanimously last week to strip Cole of his law enforcement credentials. The district attorney refused the council’s request to file criminal charges against the officer, saying he wouldn’t “rehash the same evidence,” the Greensboro News & Record reported.
The DA has full discretion on whether to bring charges in most counties. Replacing him might be the only way to make it happen.
He's acting like it's double jeopardy when it's clearly not.
Losing your job is not a criminal conviction!
Am I just saying things that are completely obvious right now?
Yeah, you are. The DA apparently thinks the guy losing his job is enough "justice" and won't be seeking anything further because of that.
That...
...
...how the fuck?
*throws random objects*
It's due to the relationship between law enforcement and the DA's office. Similar to elected executives and LE. "Law and Order" politics are strong in the US, so you will almost never see meaningful criticism of LE in the US. It's part of the very popular mindset of "you're pro law enforcement or you're pro criminal".
There needs to be a way to solve this, or nothing is going to change.
edit: Pissing off the DA wouldn't necessarily be good for the police long term, since they require the DA to put the people they want in prison.
Do they? Their jobs don't rely on that the same way a DA's does. A DA needs convictions; a police officer just needs arrests/tickets.
They can't arrest everybody and put them in their local jail, this also applies to anyone who gets jailed for not paying tickets. The people have to go somewhere.
? They don't have to put them in jail. They just have to arrest them. Those are the only stats that get looked at. They could literally arrest them and turn them back on the streets an hour later; that'd still help them keep their jobs. (Also, we could just build a lot of for-profit prisons! No problem!)
I think even the worst police are less concerned about stats than they are having to repeatedly arrest the same people for the same crime.
As a police officer, I don't lose my job if I keep arresting the same person over and over again, because the DA's not cooperating with me (or if the jails are full, or whatever).
As a DA, I do lose my job if I don't get convictions, because the police is not cooperating with me.
I honestly don't know what else you two are talking about. I'm just pointing out, one of them needs the other more than the other way around.
Granted, this fellow had attacked five people, but why it took so many missed rounds for one person is a major issue.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
~12, was 9 cops and 109 rounds of ammo apparently. Probably close to a full magazine from everyone (think they are 15 round magazines? Could be wrong.)
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Officers-Fired-109-Shots-at-Stabbing-Spree-Suspect-395455061.html
e:
Supposedly 17 rounds per mag. Police were told he had already shot two people, but turned out he had just stabbed them instead. The cops ended up hitting two houses with their missed fire.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It's a training issue. Part of it is quality (non LEO civilian shooting classes/schools teach more, and better, than most LE training programs) and part of it is quantity (the vast majority of an individual LEOs time on the job doesn't involve using a firearm unless they are on a tactical team full time, annual qualification for most agencies is also garbage).
I can never seem to remember the name if the incident, but it was a pretty big deal. The guys left a night club after a kind-of-sort-of fight. The cops showed up and killed two of them because they were going to their car to get a gun. Which I think didn't exist, of course.
Historically, in spite of any training, the police are quite dangerous when it comes to gun safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident
Pretty sure this is the one.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/23/cleveland-officer-not-guilty-shot-137-times-police
Those are not all that hard. And more importantly, they aren't done under any kind of stress.
Fair warning, this will cause your brain to try to turn itself inside attempting to understand a judicial ruling.
First link: Cop unsuccessfully sues department for releasing a video of him beating a handcuffed suspect. His theory is that if the truth of the matter is out for the world to see, he's going to have a hard time finding employment and that's a violation of his rights.
The thing that caught my eye was the following part:
Me being curious about the opinion of the appeal's court, sought out a explanation as to where the trial judge went wrong in interpreting the law. This bring us to this fun article: Linkage.
The relevant part:
And thus my brain start to tear itself apart attempting to understand how a law, actually a CRIMINAL STATUTE, is not an establishment of public policy by the legislature. This seems fairly clear to me. The state has said "Don't do this" or more importantly, "We don't want our employees doing this. This makes us look bad." But it doesn't end there. In yet another case of a court deferring to arbitration, the same judge further opined,
That's right. Don't worry that the law applies to LEOs as long as they bargained for a get out everything card through binding arbitration.
The fuck? Statute trumps contract. Period.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy