[Disturbing] Another example of police not being prepared for a lethal suspect

31,168 Views | 154 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by PrincessButtercup
Pelayo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
You are not going to send more than a couple of officers for a traffic arrest. They do not have the man power. The solution is when someone resists at all, to hit them with overwhelming force immediately. No more gerbil voodoo. Ask them. Tell them. Make them.


But the force at their disposal in the age of universal body cams and the current legal climate is not overwhelming. They can't pistol whip him in the face, take out his knees with a baton, etc. without facing prison time themselves. Tasers are functionally unreliable and often fail to subdue large or intoxicated individuals. Pepper spray isn't going to stop a determined offender.

The only overwhelming force that is reliable and legal is overwhelming manpower.
Bingo. You have now correctly identified the issue. The pendulum needs to be swung back allowing officers to use the necessary force to handle most situations without have the entire shift begging some dude to comply.

If that means serious ass whoopings and not wearing body cams, so be it.


I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it's likely that pendulum will swing back.
It will. I t is just a matter of how much anarchy occurs before it does.

Police beating criminal asses should not even be on a law abiding citizen's radar. We need to stop worrying about how the sausage is made and just let the police do their jobs in peace.
wow
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Ag4coal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
You are not going to send more than a couple of officers for a traffic arrest. They do not have the man power. The solution is when someone resists at all, to hit them with overwhelming force immediately. No more gerbil voodoo. Ask them. Tell them. Make them.


But the force at their disposal in the age of universal body cams and the current legal climate is not overwhelming. They can't pistol whip him in the face, take out his knees with a baton, etc. without facing prison time themselves. Tasers are functionally unreliable and often fail to subdue large or intoxicated individuals. Pepper spray isn't going to stop a determined offender.

The only overwhelming force that is reliable and legal is overwhelming manpower.
Bingo. You have now correctly identified the issue. The pendulum needs to be swung back allowing officers to use the necessary force to handle most situations without have the entire shift begging some dude to comply.

If that means serious ass whoopings and not wearing body cams, so be it.


I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it's likely that pendulum will swing back.
It will. I t is just a matter of how much anarchy occurs before it does.

Police beating criminal asses should not even be on a law abiding citizen's radar. We need to stop worrying about how the sausage is made and just let the police do their jobs in peace.
So swing the pendulum too far the other way? Revenge is what spirals this **** show out of control. We see it in politics, race baiting, marriages, etc. How about we try to implement mutual respect with harsh penalties for those who don't want to play by the rules?

All of this BLM stuff will have made the jobs of police officers drastically more difficult for the next two decades, but if the response is to start beating people with impunity, we'll be right back here in 40 years
The_Fox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag4coal said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
You are not going to send more than a couple of officers for a traffic arrest. They do not have the man power. The solution is when someone resists at all, to hit them with overwhelming force immediately. No more gerbil voodoo. Ask them. Tell them. Make them.


But the force at their disposal in the age of universal body cams and the current legal climate is not overwhelming. They can't pistol whip him in the face, take out his knees with a baton, etc. without facing prison time themselves. Tasers are functionally unreliable and often fail to subdue large or intoxicated individuals. Pepper spray isn't going to stop a determined offender.

The only overwhelming force that is reliable and legal is overwhelming manpower.
Bingo. You have now correctly identified the issue. The pendulum needs to be swung back allowing officers to use the necessary force to handle most situations without have the entire shift begging some dude to comply.

If that means serious ass whoopings and not wearing body cams, so be it.


I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it's likely that pendulum will swing back.
It will. I t is just a matter of how much anarchy occurs before it does.

Police beating criminal asses should not even be on a law abiding citizen's radar. We need to stop worrying about how the sausage is made and just let the police do their jobs in peace.
So swing the pendulum too far the other way? Revenge is what spirals this **** show out of control. We see it in politics, race baiting, marriages, etc. How about we try to implement mutual respect with harsh penalties for those who don't want to play by the rules?

All of this BLM stuff will have made the jobs of police officers drastically more difficult for the next two decades, but if the response is to start beating people with impunity, we'll be right back here in 40 years
Policing in the 80s and 90s is where we should be as a nation.

This BLM stuff is only a thing because regular people (aka white women) have bought off on the BS. They get scared and stop caring, it goes away.
Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pelayo said:

MPD280 said:

Pelayo said:

Comply or die?

Does that include someone you are citing for jay walking?


"Comply or die" is obviously not the approach these officers took, and is not an attitude most officers today have. These officers from Tulsa most certainly didn't, they begged the shooter to acquiesce and that obviously didn't work.
It's dangerous work, no doubt.

I wouldn't use this example though to say comply or die should always be the case as seems to be suggested.


SMH

Of course this example cannt be used because it destroys your narrative.

The irony of your statements are incredible. You imply that an LEO should be able to determine in a split second how much lethal or non-lethal force to be used in all situations from Jay-walking, to a traffic stop, to apprehension. The LEO is working with the same subject that you encounter everyday, a "human"; albeit, the LEO is more likely to encounter more life threatening humans everyday then you do in your medical practice. Hell, you want the LEO to make the correct "diagnosis" of lethal/non-lethal on a human every single event, yet you and your medical colleagues are unable to diagnos a human in a safe environment taking your own sweet time. In fact, your profession uses a disclaimer to "protect" yourself as stated in your signature line. Wow! Too bad the LEO cant fall back on one of those written legal disclaimers to keep a violent human at bay (likely they cant read it anyway, or understand it, or respect it). I'm with Fox, you dont need to know how the sausage is made, otherwise the public needs more transparency in the medical field. (Full transparency on my end, there are 2 heart surgeons in the family.)
Hagen95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A lot of the pendulum swinging would go out the door if the police profession, like many other professions, would stop the blind defense of their peers and police themselves. Throw out the bad apples in their organization. That's what creates the distrust for them in the first place.
MaxPower
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To me this video highlights opportunities for legitimate changes in policing. How can you reduce the likelihood of officers being in tactically disadvantageous situations? Traffic stops are extremely dangerous. The average citizen underestimated that. They happen all the time and each situation involves an officer approaching a vehicle with no cover and no knowledge of the individual(s) capabilities (armed?) or mental state of mind (drunk? High? Just committed a felony?). And they are taking on this risk to resolve what is, in many cases, a minor offense. I'm not saying there is no value in traffic stops, many larger crimes or warrant arrests are resolved in such manner, but there is a question of risk vs reward.
HumpitPuryear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would be totally fine had the cops, instead of saying "I'm going to tase you" would have instead just told the guy

"We asked you repeatedly to exit the vehicle and comply with lawful orders. You have not complied. I'm warning you right now that we will use all means necessary to force you to comply including taser, chemical spray, and use of a baton. You are likely to be injured as a result. I'm asking you one more time to comply with our lawful orders."

At that point I'm good with them beating the crap out of the guy if that's what it takes. This situation would have ended better for both officers and the perp if he had received a couple sharp cracks to the skull with a baton. Cops should be held responsible for their decisions but so should the scumbags. If you hear a cop warn you of the consequences and you chose those consequences than you live (or die) with that decision.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fenrir said:

Btw guys attorney wanted video released
Quote:

He says the video contradicts two things that Tulsa Police have said, one; that Ware fired three additional rounds into Sergeant. Craig Johnson, and two; that he walked away.


I can t say I agree with his claims.


His attorney is a ****ing idiot because there's no way in Hell that guy doesn't get convicted based on that.
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm trying to figure out what video the attorney supposedly watched if he thought it didn't show exactly those two things.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HumpitPuryear said:

I would be totally fine had the cops, instead of saying "I'm going to tase you" would have instead just told the guy

"We asked you repeatedly to exit the vehicle and comply with lawful orders. You have not complied. I'm warning you right now that we will use all means necessary to force you to comply including taser, chemical spray, and use of a baton. You are likely to be injured as a result. I'm asking you one more time to comply with our lawful orders."

At that point I'm good with them beating the crap out of the guy if that's what it takes. This situation would have ended better for both officers and the perp if he had received a couple sharp cracks to the skull with a baton. Cops should be held responsible for their decisions but so should the scumbags. If you hear a cop warn you of the consequences and you chose those consequences than you live (or die) with that decision.


This. I think many cops jump to using their gun far too quickly, but they also need leeway to use brute force if someone refuses to comply with a lawful order. If you get a warning your ass is about to get beat and keep not complying, that's your own fault. Once they're compliant and secured though, tactics need to change.
dBoy99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
You are not going to send more than a couple of officers for a traffic arrest. They do not have the man power. The solution is when someone resists at all, to hit them with overwhelming force immediately. No more gerbil voodoo. Ask them. Tell them. Make them.


But the force at their disposal in the age of universal body cams and the current legal climate is not overwhelming. They can't pistol whip him in the face, take out his knees with a baton, etc. without facing prison time themselves. Tasers are functionally unreliable and often fail to subdue large or intoxicated individuals. Pepper spray isn't going to stop a determined offender.

The only overwhelming force that is reliable and legal is overwhelming manpower.
Bingo. You have now correctly identified the issue. The pendulum needs to be swung back allowing officers to use the necessary force to handle most situations without have the entire shift begging some dude to comply.

If that means serious ass whoopings and not wearing body cams, so be it.


I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it's likely that pendulum will swing back.


nevermind....
dBoy99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
You are not going to send more than a couple of officers for a traffic arrest. They do not have the man power. The solution is when someone resists at all, to hit them with overwhelming force immediately. No more gerbil voodoo. Ask them. Tell them. Make them.


But the force at their disposal in the age of universal body cams and the current legal climate is not overwhelming. They can't pistol whip him in the face, take out his knees with a baton, etc. without facing prison time themselves. Tasers are functionally unreliable and often fail to subdue large or intoxicated individuals. Pepper spray isn't going to stop a determined offender.

The only overwhelming force that is reliable and legal is overwhelming manpower.
Bingo. You have now correctly identified the issue. The pendulum needs to be swung back allowing officers to use the necessary force to handle most situations without have the entire shift begging some dude to comply.

If that means serious ass whoopings and not wearing body cams, so be it.


I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it's likely that pendulum will swing back.


nevermind....
HalifaxAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rattler12 said:

Easy solution. Cops need to carry tranq guns. Just dart the phooker and wait till he's out....
You can't be serious...the required dosage to knock people out is based on weight and potential allergic reaction. Your idea would kill people.


InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hagen95 said:

A lot of the pendulum swinging would go out the door if the police profession, like many other professions, would stop the blind defense of their peers and police themselves. Throw out the bad apples in their organization. That's what creates the distrust for them in the first place.
Nice. News brought to you from the same people that report Capitalism is bad, America is racist and the earth is going to end in 10 years because of global cooling.

Let's see some statistics to back your "facts."
HumpitPuryear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HalifaxAg said:

Rattler12 said:

Easy solution. Cops need to carry tranq guns. Just dart the phooker and wait till he's out....
You can't be serious...the required dosage to knock people out is based on weight and potential allergic reaction. Your idea would kill people.



See my post above. You were warned. If you have a bad reaction to tranquilizer it's no different than if you get tased, fall down, and hit your head on the curb. You CHOSE the option of escalation. You live or die with that decision. I think tranquilizer, even if its a small dose that just makes a perp groggy, is a valid idea.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
What should they have done, then?
HoustonAg2106
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
What should they have done, then?


Yea I don't get it, should the police just let people go because they are scared?
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
InfantryAg said:

Hagen95 said:

A lot of the pendulum swinging would go out the door if the police profession, like many other professions, would stop the blind defense of their peers and police themselves. Throw out the bad apples in their organization. That's what creates the distrust for them in the first place.
Nice. News brought to you from the same people that report Capitalism is bad, America is racist and the earth is going to end in 10 years because of global cooling.

Let's see some statistics to back your "facts."


Posted this quite a awhile ago. Read the paper. There are so many barriers to accountability, many brought about by cops through union contracts or political pressure, that it doesn't truly exist for all but the most egregious of cases, and those are often the result of ticking time bombs that should have been permanently removed from policing well before the fact but were saved by the barriers created by cops.

Gerald Goines is an excellent example. He had a long list of complaints against him and was a cop for 34 years. He didn't just decide to be a ****bag one day and fabricate evidence for a no-knock raid on the Tuttles.



ABATTBQ11 said:

I did find this paper interesting:

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9652&context=penn_law_review

If you care to read it, there's an entire section on unions.

Some excerpts:
Quote:

The vast majority of these police departments give officers the ability to appeal disciplinary sanctions through multiple levels of appellate review.35 At the end of this complex process, the majority of departments permit officers to appeal disciplinary sanctions to an arbitrator selected in part by the local police union.36 And in virtually all of these cases, police departments give arbitrators significant authority to re-litigate the factual and legal grounds for disciplinary action.37 While each of these appellate procedures may be individually defensible, they could theoretically combine in a large number of police departments to create a formidable barrier to accountability

This hypothesis has several important implications for the literature on police accountability. First, these findings demonstrate that, in most American police departments, police supervisors, city councils, mayors, and civilian review boards are often not the true adjudicators of internal discipline. The final authority on disciplinary actions frequently rests with outside arbitrators or third parties.38 This suggests that the average American police officer faces even less democratic accountability than many scholars have previously assumed.

Second, the complexity and formidability of the disciplinary appeals process may explain the inability of traditional external legal mechanisms to promote reform in American police departments.39 In many documented cases, supervisors have been forced to rehire officers that have engaged in criminal offenses, violence, and other behaviors that raise serious questions about their fitness to serve in any law enforcement capacity.40 Sometimes, the offenses committed by rehired officers raise serious enough concerns about an officer's proclivity towards dishonesty that prosecutors are required to place the officer on a Brady list 41 and reassign them so as to avoid impairing future criminal prosecutions. This suggests that supervisors may be limited in their ability to bring about important personnel changes that could remedy patterns of misconduct within a police department.

Based on these findings, this Article offers some preliminary thoughts on how communities could reform the police disciplinary appeal process. For one thing, states and localities could increase democratic accountability in police disciplinary appeals. To be clear, police officers deserve procedural protections to avoid arbitrary punishment. However, in many police departments across the country, disciplinary procedures seem as if they are designed to insulate officers from democratic oversight. Thus, to the extent that communities want to promote democratic oversight of police behavior, policymakers could replace arbitrators with democratically accountable actors.42 A number of police departments already do this, by providing officers with an opportunity to appeal discipline levied by a police supervisor to civilian review boards, city councils, mayors, or city managers.43

Nevertheless, many police officers and union leaders may understandably argue that appellate procedures are designed to provide a check on the discretionary authority of democratic actors.44 A city council member, mayor, civilian review board, or city manager may not be sufficiently detached from police department supervisors so as to make an impartial decision on an internal disciplinary matter. By contrast, police unions may argue that arbitrators are truly neutral and disinterested parties, and thus well situated to adjudicate disciplinary appeals.

Thus, if communities continue using appellate procedures like arbitration in cases of disciplinary appeals, this Article proposes several steps that communities could take to balance the need for impartiality and with the community interest in democratic accountability. For example, communities could follow the lead of cities like Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Fullerton, California, in giving arbitrators narrower standards of review,45 or limiting their ability to reduce punishment if the evidence supports the alleged violation.46 Such a move would provide more deference to disciplinary decisions made by democratically accountable representatives of the community, while still empowering theoretically disinterested third parties like arbitrators to provide relief in cases of truly arbitrary or capricious punishment.

Quote:

Some research has explored the ways that the collective bargaining process may contribute to internal policies and procedures that thwart police accountability efforts.68 These studies have found that police union contracts frequently include language that impedes officer investigation and oversight by delaying officer interrogations,69 limiting civilian oversight,70 expunging records of prior officer misconduct,71 and more.72 At least one study has speculated that the structure of the collective bargaining process and the political power of police unions may be contributing to regulatory capture, whereby police unions are able to obtain unreasonably generous protections from disciplinary oversight.73 And a compelling new study by Professors Dhammika Dharmapala, Richard H. McAdams, and John Rappaport has found that the introduction of collective bargaining to sheriffs' departments in Florida corresponded with a statistically significant uptick in misconduct complaints.74
I had no idea that this was even a thing, and it seems that, in many states, officers being investigated for misconduct have insane protections in the investigation process. The Florida LEOBR is especially perplexing, as many of the tricks they would use against the average citizen under investigation cannot be used against them under similar circumstances.

Quote:

In addition to collective bargaining agreements, law enforcement officer bills of rights (LEOBRs) also set strict limits on some types of internal disciplinary action. These are state statutes passed via the legislative process designed to provide a unique level of protection to all officers within a state.83 For example, Maryland's LEOBR prevents localities from punishing officers for any "brutality" unless someone files a complaint within 366 days.84 It also allows the removal of civilian complaints from officer personnel files after three years.85 Louisiana's LEOBR provides officers with up to thirty days to secure counsel before investigators can interview them about alleged misconduct.86 In Florida, the LEOBR requires investigators to provide an officer under investigation with all evidence related to the investigation before beginning an interrogation.87 This includes the name of all complainants, physical evidence, incident reports, GPS locational data, audio evidence, and video recordings.88 In Illinois, the LEOBR bars the consideration of anonymous civilian complaints.89 And in Delaware, the LEOBR bars municipalities from requiring officers to disclose personal assets as a condition of employment.90 These only scratch the surface of the protective procedures offered by LEOBRs to police officers facing internal investigations.
One of the points made is that while the LEOBR doesn't touch on disciplinary procedures, they often cripple the investigation process so as to tip the disciplinary procedures in officers' favor. Same thing for many union contracts. If you can't consider an officer's full history of complaints, can't ask certain questions, have to wait to question them, etc, it's a lot harder to gather evidence to use in a disciplinary proceeding, regardless of where it takes place.

TLDR Police accountability is hampered not just in disciplinary processes, but in the protections given to cop's in the investigative and record keeping processes that inevitably support the disciplinary processes through union contracts and legislation. There are legion small barriers to discipline and accountability created by legislators and union contracts in virtually all localities that contribute to and add up to a near total lack of accountability nationwide.



Then there's this, from San Antonio:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2020/01/07/report-two-thirds-of-fired-san-antonio-cops-won-their-jobs-back-in-arbitration%3fmedia=AMP%2bHTML

Officers fired for egregious offenses are routinely given their jobs back by a system advocated for by cops.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
What should they have done, then?


Called for backup with more tasers/pepper spray. He's not going anywhere.
Ag4coal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MaxPower said:

To me this video highlights opportunities for legitimate changes in policing. How can you reduce the likelihood of officers being in tactically disadvantageous situations? Traffic stops are extremely dangerous. The average citizen underestimated that. They happen all the time and each situation involves an officer approaching a vehicle with no cover and no knowledge of the individual(s) capabilities (armed?) or mental state of mind (drunk? High? Just committed a felony?). And they are taking on this risk to resolve what is, in many cases, a minor offense. I'm not saying there is no value in traffic stops, many larger crimes or warrant arrests are resolved in such manner, but there is a question of risk vs reward.
The problem is that risk v reward can't be known without removing police influence. If we don't have police removing intoxicated people from road ways (approximately 1.5 MILLION per year), how many more drunk driving deaths do we see (already over 10,000 per year). Those minor offenses (which i have been pulled over for) are often signs of intoxicated driving. I WANT those people pulled over, and I do NOT want them shooting at cops.

We have to restore the national respect for the position, but cops also need to help by shining a light on the scum in their departments and kicking them out quickly.
Rattler12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HalifaxAg said:

Rattler12 said:

Easy solution. Cops need to carry tranq guns. Just dart the phooker and wait till he's out....
You can't be serious...the required dosage to knock people out is based on weight and potential allergic reaction. Your idea would kill people.



Works fine with whitetails, exotics, bears, big cats and other wild animals. These folks easily fit into the wild animals category.
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hagen95 said:

A lot of the pendulum swinging would go out the door if the police profession, like many other professions, would stop the blind defense of their peers and police themselves. Throw out the bad apples in their organization. That's what creates the distrust for them in the first place.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
What should they have done, then?


Called for backup with more tasers/pepper spray. He's not going anywhere.
So, waste the scarce resources and time of both of these officers AND more officers just for this one guy? What about if EVERYONE that night behaved like the shooter and they run out of officers to call?
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MaxPower said:

To me this video highlights opportunities for legitimate changes in policing. How can you reduce the likelihood of officers being in tactically disadvantageous situations? Traffic stops are extremely dangerous. The average citizen underestimated that. They happen all the time and each situation involves an officer approaching a vehicle with no cover and no knowledge of the individual(s) capabilities (armed?) or mental state of mind (drunk? High? Just committed a felony?). And they are taking on this risk to resolve what is, in many cases, a minor offense. I'm not saying there is no value in traffic stops, many larger crimes or warrant arrests are resolved in such manner, but there is a question of risk vs reward.


Traffic stops are not inherently dangerous. They are potentially dangerous. There is a distinct and important difference because when you talk about risk and reward, those are things based on probability, and is vs potentially is influences that substantially. When you look at how dangerous any stop is, you have to look at the base rate of actually dangerous stops.
Yelnick McWawa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
New World Ag said:

thirdcoast said:

Did he draw his own gun or steal from cop? SIAP
It was under his seat, looks like he got loose enough the fish it out with his right hand.

I'm still shook up after watching that last night. Officer Johnson's screams are bad enough, then you hear him go silent after that POS fires the final head shot.


Yeah you can see him trying to reach for it right about the time he gets pepper sprayed. Frankly I thought that was the point in the video in which the cops shoot him.
Wasn't expecting it to end like it did.
Either the cops didn't see him reaching for it or they've been conditioned to be scared ****less about shooting someone in that situation thanks to BLM and the media.
I'm going with the latter.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag with kids said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

The_Fox said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Ag with kids said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

Shooter needs to get the needle, but in hindsight the officers would have been better served holding back and waiting for more help. He clearly wasn't going anywhere, and even if they hadn't been shot all of that wasn't worth it over such a petty offense.
The Sgt that showed up WAS the "more help".

It was, at first appearance, a simple stop. How much backup do you think they should wait on before they get 1 guy out of a car?

And are you saying that if people break the law and then vehemently protest then if it's not a big offense the police should just ignore it?


I'm not saying they should ignore it at all.
The correct answer is when people are crying that the police murdered Lil Wayne, check out the video and if you see Lil Wayne run or fight with the police click stop, and tell those crying to just STFU.

If you see Lil Wayne crawling down the hallway, unarmed, and get executed by an officer with an AR, continue watching until the end and protest if you are so inclined.

This is not complicated.


I have no sympathy for the shooter here, or anyone who picks a fight with a uniformed officer. My concern here is for the safety of the police and how they could have avoided what ultimately happened here.

The two of them alone getting that guy out of the car right then over an illegal left turn and driving with expired tags just wasn't worth it. It's extremely hard for two people to safely restrain a full grown man who is determined to not go along with it.
What should they have done, then?


Called for backup with more tasers/pepper spray. He's not going anywhere.
So, waste the scarce resources and time of both of these officers AND more officers just for this one guy? What about if EVERYONE that night behaved like the shooter and they run out of officers to call?


And if my aunt had nuts, I'd call her my uncle. This guy is quite obviously the exception. Most people are cooperative with police, so when someone is uncooperative, they should work to make sure they maintain as much of a tactical advantage as possible.
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lobopride said:

Is it just me or would a police dog come in handy in a situation like this? The perp refuses to exit vehicle. Call for a K9 and let the dog get him out.
There are only so many dogs available (not every department has them) and that's a huge outlay of resources every time there is a non-compliance. At that point, you might as well just let them go. Once you start doing that, no one complies and you have, well, Portland.

I wish people would realize that while there are definitely some good ideas that we haven't thought of or implemented yet in police work (and that will always be the case), there's a reason why (for the most part) we don't do things that people suggest in one sentence on a message board -- they've either been tried and failed or they can't be implemented in a lot of cases due to resources. In other words, someone has probably already thought about this and rejected it. Its one thing to play Monday morning QB; its another to play it as a complete amateur. I know many have good intentions but frankly, professionals read some of this stuff and just roll their eyes.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
System's not perfect, but statistically these examples are minuscule. A blanket condemnation is uninformed and wrong. Today's police aren't going to be any worse than any other industry and probably much better.

Now look up the stats of the amount of cops that are fired or forced to resign.

Then the amount of cops that cover up for other cops illegal behaviors. I would not cover for another cop and risk losing my job, or my freedom. That's what was taught in all three of my academies in this last decade.

What they taught and did 20 years ago is generations away now. 50 years ago is ancient history.

Edit:
Some of these shouldn't have been firings to begin with. I am not a pro-union guy, but police management mostly sucks. I mean really bad, even in the feds.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:



Most people are cooperative with police
This has become noticeably less so in DC (and I would venture most urban areas), especially in the last few months.
crowman2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Infection_Ag11 said:

JB99 said:

In hindsight what could they have done different?


Wait for more officers and not try to remove a fairly stout individual from the car by themselves, especially given the petty nature of the events that led to them being there in the first place.

They put themselves in what I perceive as unnecessary danger.
What if this is in a rural area where these are the only two officers on duty?

By not being able to utilize ALL of their equipment, without the fear of retaliation at a moments notice, they've been forced into unnecessary danger.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
InfantryAg said:

System's not perfect, but statistically these examples are minuscule. A blanket condemnation is uninformed and wrong. Today's police aren't going to be any worse than any other industry and probably much better.

Now look up the stats of the amount of cops that are fired or forced to resign.

Then the amount of cops that cover up for other cops illegal behaviors. I would not cover for another cop and risk losing my job, or my freedom. That's what was taught in all three of my academies in this last decade.

What they taught and did 20 years ago is generations away now. 50 years ago is ancient history.



Just because you don't cover for bad behavior doesn't mean that the disciplinary system that addresses it will take care of it. It's no different than antifa protesters. Why do they stay on the street after being repeatedly arrested and filmed committing crimes? Because the system in place to prosecute and punish them after their arrest is incapable or unwilling to do so. The disciplinary systems for police in America function much the same way because they are incapable or unwilling to effectively discipline bad cops, and those systems were mostly created by and for cops. Simply reporting or corroborating reports of bad behavior isn't enough if nothing meaningful happens afterward.

I'm not saying all police are bad, but they aggregately advocate for and perpetuate a system of unaccountability. Cops can't demand Byzantine rules for investigation, discipline, and termination and then complain when people lose faith in them because those Byzantine rules they wanted continually keep ****ty cops on the street. They need to take some level of responsibility for the systems they helped institute and the environments they have created, but I don't think we'll be seeing cops or unions advocating for fewer protections or less favorable investigative or disciplinary procedures anytime soon.
jimbo457
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My colleague sent me over here to review this video. We work for a law enforcement agency in Texas. I won't get into my thoughts on the video other than to say that it breaks my heart. I want to address some of the comments on this thread, specifically those made by The Fox. This person claims to be a former LEO and I have a hard time believing that. This person has made some of the most idiotic, immature, and tone deaf comments that I've seen on any thread related to this topic. I am convinced that this person is either a troll or someone who desperately wants to be in law enforcement but never made it. Please be certain, coming from a 22 year veteran of Texas Law Enforcement, that this person in no way speaks for the people I have served with or currently serve with. The phrase "comply or die" is about as stupid a thing as I've ever heard. If anyone is interested to know what real police think, I encourage you to go to your local department and ask to speak to someone, anyone. You'll quickly find that the overwhelming majority of men and women in this profession are here because they want a meaningful job in which they can serve their community. Yes, this job is insanely hard at times, but people like The Fox only make it harder.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IMO, two cops are generally plenty to handle an irate irrational driver. Maybe one more, but then you start hitting that point of diminishing return.

If I tell you to get out of the car and you hesitate, at best you are going to get ONE explanation that you are coming out by your force or by my force and that it is NON-Negotiable. You might get one or two warnings depending on if I feel I can coax you out and you're not presenting to me an imminent danger.

If you are out of your car, and especially if you are acting unusual, you are not getting back into your car. No way I would have let Jacob Blake into his car, because of this situation.

I am going to be in control of this situation one way or the other.

This unfortunate situation is a training error. More training in realistic scenarios and fighting skills etc. are needed with 99% of agencies. Their fighting with the criminal was very ineffective, like they hadn't practiced fighting in a long time (or ever). They were not mentally prepared for this.

If the Chief / trainer / supervisor, etc. knew they (or a loved one) were going to be in this fight/situation tomorrow, what would they do to prepare for it today? That should be how they are training their officers.


Where are the posters who always say the cop should wait till the guns actually pointed at him, because cops are paid for that risk? Because, this it what you were asking for.
Pinche Abogado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jimbo457 said:

My colleague sent me over here to review this video. We work for a law enforcement agency in Texas. I won't get into my thoughts on the video other than to say that it breaks my heart. I want to address some of the comments on this thread, specifically those made by The Fox. This person claims to be a former LEO and I have a hard time believing that. This person has made some of the most idiotic, immature, and tone deaf comments that I've seen on any thread related to this topic. I am convinced that this person is either a troll or someone who desperately wants to be in law enforcement but never made it. Please be certain, coming from a 22 year veteran of Texas Law Enforcement, that this person in no way speaks for the people I have served with or currently serve with. The phrase "comply or die" is about as stupid a thing as I've ever heard. If anyone is interested to know what real police think, I encourage you to go to your local department and ask to speak to someone, anyone. You'll quickly find that the overwhelming majority of men and women in this profession are here because they want a meaningful job in which they can serve their community. Yes, this job is insanely hard at times, but people like The Fox only make it harder.
Thank you for everything you and your colleagues do for Texas communities. You have the unwavering support of law abiding citizens.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Old Tom Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly. The Monday Morning QB's have zero appreciation for how fast these go bad. This is exactly the scenario the Jacob Blake cop was expecting when he fired.

And if a suspect is going to fight a cop, the cop has to assume that fight could be to the death.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.