View Full Version : Rise of the Warrior Cop
It is astounding the reach of DHS has......Jeh Joson can't allocate resources for the border, but his agency has the time and funding to be the Repo Man for the EPA.
STATESVILLE, NC (WBTV) -
When Jennifer Brinkley saw a line of law enforcement vehicles coming up her driveway last Tuesday she didn't know what to think. "I haven't done anything wrong."
The Homeland Security agents were not there to take her away, they were looking for illegally imported Land Rover Defenders. Brinkley had bought one via the internet last year and had invested more than $60,000 into the rare vehicle.
http://www.wbtv.com/story/26075071/woman-has-questions-after-agents-seize-land-rovers
A more intense report on the incident:
In another example of how the Department of Homeland Security has expanded far outside the purview of its original function, six vehicles full of DHS agents were required to seize a Land Rover from a couple in Statesville, N.C. due to the fact that the vehicle allegedly violates EPA emission standards.
http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-agents-raid-home-to-seize-land-rover-for-violation-of-epa-regulations/
It is astounding the reach of DHS has......Jeh Joson can't allocate resources for the border, but his agency has the time and funding to be the Repo Man for the EPA.
You are familiar with the term "Eco Terrorist" ? These Land Rover folks are destroying the planet.
Streck-Fu
08-13-2014, 13:11
Not sure if this should go here or in the MRAP thread but it's not an MRAP so here it is.....
Doraville, GA SWAT practices an officer down rescue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajhu7qgojU#t=43
It is proudly posted on the agency website. LINK (http://www.doravillepolice.us/media)
Their photo gallery has lots of action and M113 photos: LINK (http://www.doravillepolice.us/field-operations/specialized-operations/swat)
Doraville, GA...population reported to be a little over 8,000 folks in 2012.
Streck-Fu
08-13-2014, 13:32
Doraville, GA...population reported to be a little over 8,000 folks in 2012.
Crime rates: LINK (http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Doraville-Georgia.html)
They are part Dekalb County which also has a SWAT team...
While part of Atlanta in Dekalb County, Doraville is a suburb.
Crime rates: LINK (http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Doraville-Georgia.html)
They are part Dekalb County which also has a SWAT team...
While part of Atlanta in Dekalb County, Doraville is a suburb.
Relatively low crime rate, small town, backup SWAT not far away...these folks are loaded for bear.
Hotlanta itself can be dicey in parts but Doraville looks to be a nice little suburb - sort of surprising to see a tracked vehicle....annual maintenance costs must be pretty high.
ETA: after further review - looks like a fairly high number of thefts, burglaries and assaults - probably a byproduct of location. However, the town compares well to neighboring towns. I wonder how the tracked vehicle plays into reducing violent crime? Interesting trend.
Over in PA, we have numerous Regioinal Police agencies, configured as a cost savings. There are also Regional SWAT type units. One that comes to mind is The Central Montgomery County Special Weapons and Tactics (CMSWAT).
http://www.westnorritontwp.org/index.aspx?NID=168
I worked with a guy from this unit, when it was named differently, and I knew the funding came from various sources. There were also private/ civilian donations, due to the Corporate client base in the region. The nuclear plant had some donations, as well.
From an LEO stand point, the chain of command went through the SWAT organization, when called into formation/ duty.
The only thing I can think of as a "corporation" basis, is along the lines of Volunterr Fire Companies. I know many of the VFCs do fund raising, but a large portion comes form the municipalities they service. This opens up the entire Municipal/ County/ State/ Federal funding and grant game.
I always love to see the VFC Chief driving his vehicle hundreds of miles on personal shopping trips with his wife. Yeah, so he can be ready to respond. Sure.
Massachusettes is a Commonwealth, like Pennsylvania, so maybe there is different laws/ rulings as to the formation of the LE Agencies.
The National Tactical Officers Association has a web site and they are VERY active.
http://ntoa.org/site/
Something similair in NY and NJ is the Port Authority of NY/NJ. They are a Corporation, though they have a huge police presence. Their LEOs are certified in NY and NJ. Trying to get information from them is nearly impossible.
The Port Authority of NY & NJ is a government (bi-state) agency, not a corporation.
Wondering if they used the 113 to arrest the pellet gun vandal?
Streck-Fu
08-14-2014, 07:30
Semi-local to me.
A few years ago in Evansville, IN, a teenage boy used a nearby unsecured wifi to access a website and make threats against the police and police chief in particular. The extent of the investigation was to identify the house the network was in. SWAT was used to execute a search warrant. Then they learn that the threats came from somewhere else.....The kid was located and arrested then plead guilty.
The city did pay for damages but the homeowner sued.
fast forward to now. It turns out that the police had a tag along news crew for this 'high threat warrant serving so SWAT has to be used but a TV crew is totally kosher raid' ....
The lawyers for the city have released this video as an example of how professional their officers are and the use of force is completely proportional.
LINK (http://www.courierpress.com/news/local-news/crime/city-seeks-favorable-ruling-in-swat-incident-lawsuit-police-video-shows-what-happened_21314982)
I
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts?
They didn't need to take that Armored Car down the street to take out that film crew's lights and camera - but they used it.
Still looked like a bunch of pussies getting out of it. And looked like a bunch of chickens walking around.
Armored Vehicles gives the Po-Po thoughts of power - power they shouldn't have.
You have to be careful with that argument though, because that is the same logic the gun control folk use with regards to people owning AR-15s and other so-called "assault weapons," i.e. that it makes them think they are bad-asses, have power, etc...
Yeah, to protect ourselves from the MRAP rolling down the street.
Not sure if this should go here or in the MRAP thread but it's not an MRAP so here it is.....
Doraville, GA SWAT practices an officer down rescue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajhu7qgojU#t=43
It is proudly posted on the agency website. LINK (http://www.doravillepolice.us/media)
Their photo gallery has lots of action and M113 photos: LINK (http://www.doravillepolice.us/field-operations/specialized-operations/swat)
This is one of the "gheyest" videos I have ever seen. In addition to the boring subject matter and the juvenile music the video is attached to...the skull imagery and "Punisher" imagery is completely inappropriate for law enforcement.
Having said that there is a place in law enforcement for armored vehicles. I think the MRAP is serious overkill and a tracked vehicle is just impractcal and sends the wrong message. I do however think a "Brinks" type armored car that offers ballistic protection is reasonable for larger departments to have access to.
This is one of the "gheyest" videos I have ever seen. In addition to the boring subject matter and the juvenile music the video is attached to...the skull imagery and "Punisher" imagery is completely inappropriate for law enforcement.
Having said that there is a place in law enforcement for armored vehicles. I think the MRAP is serious overkill and a tracked vehicle is just impractcal and sends the wrong message. I do however think a "Brinks" type armored car that offers ballistic protection is reasonable for larger departments to have access to.
I agree with the vehicle.
I just wrote another comment on us having an MRAP, complements from the government. Like I stated before that I didn't think we had a landmine issue in the US just yet, they were all upset about a bill being introduced about de-militarizing the country's Law Enforcement agencies. One guy I use to work with is upset about this because they want to take away his helmet and weapon. LE does not need select fire weapons, period.
IMHO, SWAT officers should have the best personal equipment they can get. Weapons are another story. I do not believe in any "light" "medium", or "heavy" machine guns should be made available to law enforcement. They are not needed. I remember the SLA shootout in the early 70's. At one point, and this is well known, SWAT on scene requested for the use of M67 fragmentation grenades to be used on the house. Permission, I believe was granted and that officers were heading to the nearest base to collect them. The incident supposedly ended before the trip was made. If they were able to obtain these grenades back then, just think what they would be able to have now. MRAP vehicles I feel, have crossed the line. Strykers will be next.
Streck-Fu
08-19-2014, 09:32
If they were able to obtain these grenades back then, just think what they would be able to have now. MRAP vehicles I feel, have crossed the line. Strykers will be next.
Military drones are next. LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/28/first-american-gets-prison-with-assistance-predator-drone/)
Military drones are next. LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/28/first-american-gets-prison-with-assistance-predator-drone/)
Well Streck, they are already in use around here.
Also, this burns my butter. LEO's who have gone way out of bounds on this one.
www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/12/nj-mans-vaults-cut-open-guns-powder-police/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-08-19&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
Also, this burns my butter. LEO's who have gone way out of bounds on this one.
www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/12/nj-mans-vaults-cut-open-guns-powder-police/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-08-19&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
He was too honest for his own good, why though did they have to destroy his safes? Why not get a warrant and force him to turn over the combinations or get a locksmith involved?
So when are SWAT unit's going to start receiving those old M60's? IMO, since a healthy number of Vet's are ETS'ing and subsequently joining their local PD's for a job, they carry that mentality into the ranks. They transmit that mentality to their subordinates/colleagues as well, resulting in a mixing bowl of what I call the "Constitutional Combat" mentality. A mix of Mil and LE training, logistics/supply, mission planning, and execution of those missions. It may not seem like a big deal to those officers, but when citizens start seeing MRAP's rolling down the road with a cannon of some sort poking out of the turret, it stands to reason why they get a little uneasy. I know I felt a little uneasy the first time I saw the Polizei in action.
I understand that they have a need to protect themselves, but lately whenever I turn on the news and see police responding to a stand-off, riot, etc., it looks like a Special-Ranger-Forces-Recon-SEAL-Delta operator reunion. For instance, the headline photo in the article below:
http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033-program-264537?piano_t=1
Streck-Fu
08-20-2014, 08:41
Not a warrior. Doing it wrong: LINK (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/51598475/highlight/541859)
I feel so much safer know that Homeland Security is raiding panty stores..... :mad:
Goring and Himmler would be proud.
Peregrine Honig says she just wanted to help celebrate the hometown team when she designed Lucky Royals boyshorts.
The panties, with “Take the Crown” and “KC” across the bottom, were set to be sold in Honig’s Birdies Panties shop Tuesday. But Homeland Security agents visited the Crossroads store and confiscated the few dozen pairs of underwear, printed in Kansas City by Lindquist Press.
“They came in and there were two guys” Honig said. “I asked one of them what size he needed and he showed me a badge and took me outside. They told me they were from Homeland Security and we were violating copyright laws.”
She thought that since the underwear featured her hand-drawn design that she was safe. But the officers explained that by connecting the “K” and the “C,” she infringed on major league baseball copyright. (The officials involved could not be immediately reached for comment.)
They placed the underwear in an official Homeland Security bag and had Honig sign a statement saying she wouldn’t use the logo.
“We just thought it was something funny we could do,” Honig says of the panties. “But it was so scary.”
Danielle Meister, Honig’s shop partner, says it was like something out of the movies, with the badges and all. But on the bright side, the officers were nice. She says you could tell “they felt like they were kicking a puppy.”
We might not be able to wear Lucky Royals boyshorts from Birdies, but you can still buy a pair of crown-inspired pasties if you’re feisty. birdiespanties.com
http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article3222737.html
Streck-Fu
10-22-2014, 14:10
She says you could tell “they felt like they were kicking a puppy.”
That is when the Little Voice of conscience in their head should be telling them to either look at a different career or push back against such bullshit....
TacOfficer
10-22-2014, 14:20
Me thinks there is more to the story other than the Story.
I really doubt it was homeland security.
Seems more like a reporter's cheap stunt to get a picture of a piece of ass in the paper
Go Royals! :munchin
The Reaper
10-22-2014, 14:29
They would have never been touched if they were a Chinese company making direct trademark knockoffs and including official holograms.
TR
Me thinks there is more to the story other than the Story.
I really doubt it was homeland security.
Seems more like a reporter's cheap stunt to get a picture of a piece of ass in the paper
Go Royals! :munchin
If there is more to the story the local news will pick it up, but at present they are all in on the story as told. It will be interesting to see what happens to all the people hawking Royals gear on street corners much of which is not 'Official'.
Also keep in mind that in 2010 DHS siezed 70 websites over copyright and trademark violations and there was the Magic Cube....so it isn't like it hasn't happened before.
http://mashable.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-website-seized/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004toystore.htm
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2004/11/rubiks_cube_r_a.html
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/members-congress-demand-answers-homeland-securitys-unjust-domain-name-seizures
http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/04/06/craft-or-crime-homeland-security-raids-gibson-search-for%E2%80%A6-wood
They raided Gibson Guitars in Nashville, TN. so the fact that they raided the underwear folks is no surprise to me. That being said I do not for the life of me believe that this is a prudent use of government resources in either case.
I feel so much safer know that Homeland Security is raiding panty stores.... :mad:
I've torn out my alarm system and de-registered from the Neighborhood Watch.
I've got a Pakistani flag on my car and the black flag of ISIS on the flag pole on my garage.
The local police, CIA, NSA, FBI, and other intelligence services are all watching my house 24/7.
I've never felt safer... ;)
Richard
That's the way.
I've torn out my alarm system and de-registered from the Neighborhood Watch.
I've got a Pakistani flag on my car and the black flag of ISIS on the flag pole on my garage.
The local police, CIA, NSA, FBI, and other intelligence services are all watching my house 24/7.
I've never felt safer... ;)
Richard
LOLOL
I've torn out my alarm system and de-registered from the Neighborhood Watch.
I've got a Pakistani flag on my car and the black flag of ISIS on the flag pole on my garage.
The local police, CIA, NSA, FBI, and other intelligence services are all watching my house 24/7.
I've never felt safer... ;)
Richard
Hell, might as well. You've (we've) already paid for it with our taxes. Might as well get some use outta them. :cool:
TacOfficer
10-23-2014, 19:02
I stand corrected:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/23/kansas-city-lingerie-shopowners-in-twist-after-homeland-security-panty-raid/
I have got to join that unit.
I can only imagine what my chain of command would say if I would conduct such a "raid". :)
Streck-Fu
10-23-2014, 20:10
I stand corrected:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/23/kansas-city-lingerie-shopowners-in-twist-after-homeland-security-panty-raid/
I have got to join that unit.
I can only imagine what my chain of command would say if I would conduct such a "raid". :)
You need to establish a similar unit on the local university campus.
TacOfficer
10-23-2014, 21:31
You need to establish a similar unit on the local university campus.
Of course the unit patch would need to be designed and Motto established.
Suggestions?
Oh and it would have to pay homage to the DHS pioneers in the field/drawer. :D
The Reaper
10-23-2014, 21:33
Of course the unit patch would need to be designed and Motto established.
Suggestions?
Oh and it would have to pay homage to the DHS pioneers in the field/drawer. :D
Please.
You are killing me. :D
TR
www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/Attorney-Calls-Deputies-Response-to-Property-Seizure-Excessive-Lawsuit-Filed-280578482.html
Just a tad bit excessive.
The more I think about it the more I refuse to accept the use of the moniker "warrior cop"...
...most of the events we look at when using the term "warrior cop" highlight men that have earned neither the title of 'warrior' OR 'cop'.
Some are in fact 'cops', but almost none of them are 'warriors'. Putting on body armor and wearing a bunch of kit HARDLY qualifies as being a warrior. I offer as evidence, the legend of Ephialtes of Trachis...
...he willingly demonstrated the brand of warrior spirit and honor that was always resident beneath his cloak and sheild.
The word "warrior" is every bit as abused these days as "operator" was a few years ago.
Just an opinion
The more I think about it the more I refuse to accept the use of the moniker "warrior cop"...
...most of the events we look at when using the term "warrior cop" highlight men that have earned neither the title of 'warrior' OR 'cop'.
Some are in fact 'cops', but almost none of them are 'warriors'. Putting on body armor and wearing a bunch of kit HARDLY qualifies as being a warrior. I offer as evidence, the legend of Ephialtes of Trachis...
...he willingly demonstrated the brand of warrior spirit and honor that was always resident beneath his cloak and sheild.
The word "warrior" is every bit as abused these days as "operator" was a few years ago.
Just an opinion
Kit doesn't matter anymore.
Sweet ass multicam hats and beards are all that are required these days.
Wannabe fucktards.
SWAT as code enforcement, revenue enforcement ....good times.
"I've been involved in about five standoff situations where, as soon as the MARV showed up, the person gives up," saving time, money and increasing safety, Bean said.
Madison's police recently made a similar endorsement after officers used one to carry out the safe arrest of a man who had fired at police from a window of his home.
MARV stands for Marathon County Response Vehicle, which his department obtained in 2011. It's the only one in the county and gets used 10 to 20 times a year, Bean said.
"People may not always understand why, but an armored vehicle is almost a necessity now," Bean said.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/armored-vehicle-helps-collect-civil-judgment-in-small-town-b99376798z1-280427872.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
The more I think about it the more I refuse to accept the use of the moniker "warrior cop"...
...most of the events we look at when using the term "warrior cop" highlight men that have earned neither the title of 'warrior' OR 'cop'.
Some are in fact 'cops', but almost none of them are 'warriors'. Putting on body armor and wearing a bunch of kit HARDLY qualifies as being a warrior. I offer as evidence, the legend of Ephialtes of Trachis...
...he willingly demonstrated the brand of warrior spirit and honor that was always resident beneath his cloak and sheild.
The word "warrior" is every bit as abused these days as "operator" was a few years ago.
Just an opinion
I believe the term "Warrior" Cop came out around the time that the "Bullet Proof Mind" came out. Just FYI Sir.
I would like this cop patrolling my neighborhood http://youtu.be/qfdRALis3lQ I would buy the bystander a beer or two.
I would like this cop patrolling my neighborhood http://youtu.be/qfdRALis3lQ I would buy the bystander a beer or two.
I'd buy that bystander a mocha soy latte as well, but would politely ask hin not to wear Crocs..:eek:
www.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/toxic-leadership
KUSA – Nearly half of the $22 million in excess military equipment sent to the state under the military's now-controversial 1033 Program was donated to smaller Colorado law enforcement agencies. The analysis, completed by 9Wants to Know, suggests a highly rural tone to a story that has generated international headlines since clashes erupted with police on the streets of Ferguson, Mo.
http://www.9news.com/longform/news/investigations/2014/11/06/occupied-colorado/18604617/
DIYPatriot
11-12-2014, 11:31
I would say this is unbelievable, but I can't. This is becoming so believable and that's really f'd up.
A man who called 911 to report that he had seen a shooting suspect was mistakenly shot by responding law enforcement officers on October 31, Vancouver police said Tuesday.
The man had told police that he spotted 59-year-old John Kendall in the 700 block of Northeast Blanford Drive. A manhunt was under way at the time for Kendall, who deputies said had shot his neighbor earlier that morning.
Investigators then confirmed Kendall's cell phone was in the immediate area according to the Vancouver Police Department.
A SWAT team arriving at the scene spotted a man who matched Kendall's description. They were unaware that the citizen who called 911 was still there.
"Law enforcement personnel watched as the citizen (believed to be Kendall) exited his vehicle and circled behind his trunk," police explained. "Fearing that he armed himself, law enforcement fired multiple shots at the individual in order to stop the perceived threat before the citizen could enter the woods."
Story Continued at KGW News (http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/vancouver/2014/11/11/police-mistakenly-shoot-911-caller-after-he-reports-seeing-suspect/18885169/)
Editorial from TTAG (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/wa-swat-team-win-shootout-with-911-caller/)
The Reaper
11-12-2014, 11:44
"To Protect, and to Serve."
Can I now legally shoot someone, because I suspect that they are "arming themselves"?
TR
Okayyyyyy, so apparently the citizen DID arm himself ...
The man was shot in the leg. He took cover behind a gravel pile and fired a shot back, then he called 911 again, this time to report that he had been shot.
Unless he was already armed?
Someone's got some 'splainin to do. :munchin
Streck-Fu
11-15-2014, 18:09
How not to do it.....Seems a little close to "Crying Wolf"...LINK (http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2014/11/15/police-officers-draw-guns-during-unannounced-active-shooter-drill-at-elementary-school/)
Winter Haven, Fla. (CBS TAMPA) – Students, teachers and parents were taken by surprise after an “active shooter drill” brought the Winter Haven middle school into lockdown as armed police officers burst into classrooms with their weapons drawn.
Students at Jewett Middle Academy said they were terrified when police officers burst in the doors for a planned active shooter drill – but students and teachers are irked they were not told ahead of time.
Seventh-grader Lauren Marionneaux told WTVT-TV that when the officers burst into her class with an AR-15, she was in fear for her life.
“We actually thought that someone was going to come in there and kill us,” the station quoted her as saying.
It's hard to believe such a bad idea made it all the way to the execution phase. Wow. Idiotic. Not sure this has anything to do with the militarization of police as much as a case study in stupidity.
TacOfficer
11-16-2014, 10:19
What would the excuse have been, if there was a slip and fall and a round lets loose or a teacher had a heart attack from the trama of seeing the police storming the school?
Accidents happen during legitimate incidents, but my dear brother is creating one of his own making. :confused:
Wow. That is just insane! I would be irate if that was my kids school. How did that ever pass sniff test from the street cops, let alone the brass? That is up there with selling guns to cartels. I see civil suits coming.
Streck-Fu
01-30-2015, 09:27
Now that New York has the SAFE Act to disarm its citizens farther, it is time to create a new police unit with 'machine guns'....LINK (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/bratton-unveils-plans-for-new-anti-terror-police-unit/)
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Police Commissioner Bill Bratton announced Thursday that the NYPD is establishing a new anti-terror strike force.
The unit of 350 cops will be specially trained in high-tech weaponry to deal with protests, “lone wolf” attacks and evolving threats posed by terrorists, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported.
The Strategic Response Group, Bratton said, will be dedicated to “disorder control and counterterrorism protection capabilities.”
“They’ll be equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not,” Bratton said. “They’ll be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and machine guns — unfortunately sometimes necessary in these instances.”
I wonder if that extra training means they won't hit bystanders .....:D
Mustang Man
01-30-2015, 10:27
When I was in Kabul 6 months ago, our Company Commander didn't want dismounted troops to carry saws, only have them and the 240's fixed on the vehicles. He wanted to decrease the chances of civilian casualties that may have been caught in the crossfire in the city, our primary mission was PSD and convoy security. I'm now just reflecting on how cops will probably be more heavily armed in a city in the UNITED STATES than what some troops were in a city in AFGAHNISTAN last year. Telling isn't it...
Team Sergeant
01-30-2015, 10:33
Now that New York has the SAFE Act to disarm its citizens farther, it is time to create a new police unit with 'machine guns'....LINK (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/01/29/bratton-unveils-plans-for-new-anti-terror-police-unit/)
I wonder if that extra training means they won't hit bystanders .....:D
Machineguns in the hands of cops...... great choice.
If you ask anyone in U.S. Special Operations they will tell you machineguns are a "non-discriminatory" weapon and only used when innocent lives are NOT at stake.
Sorry NYPD but I cannot think of one situation where your use of a machinegun, on American soil, would be "justified".
This guy might want to review his PD's shots fired to hit ratio.
This article is a little dated, 2008, but seemed relevant to this conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all
New York City police officers fire their weapons far less often than they did a decade ago, a statistic that has dropped along with the crime rate. But when they do fire, even at an armed suspect, there is often no one returning fire at the officers. Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time
When they fire at dogs, roughly 55 percent of shots hit home. Most of their targets are pit bulls, with a smattering of Rottweilers and German shepherds.
Officers’ guns go off unintentionally or by accident for a variety of reasons: wrestling with suspects, cleaning the weapons, leaning on holsters — even once, in 1996, when a gun was put in an oven for safekeeping.
While the drop in police shootings was already clear, the details were among the myriad facts included in 11 years’ worth of annual New York Police Department firearms-discharge reports that were, without fanfare, handed over to the City Council this week and earlier to the New York Civil Liberties Union.
If their hit ratios are that low while often not receiving incoming fire, I don't imagine that adding the fun switch is going to make people safer. :munchin :eek:
The Reaper
01-30-2015, 11:53
So what is done about the two in three shots fired by officers in the most densely populated metropolitan area in the country that do NOT hit their intended target?
Is that acceptable?
Are officers not accountable for every bullet they fire, just like a citizen would be?
How will full-auto fire affect that already piss poor hit ratio?
Note, the most competent shooting units in the U.S Army almost never use automatic weapons fire. Especially when hits count, and collateral damage is unacceptable, which I would assume is also the NYPD's desired result.
How often do NYPD officers currently familiarization fire and qualify with their assigned weapons?
Are ranges and ammunition regularly available to them?
The NYPD has more officers assigned than a U.S. Army Division.
Is this a wise policy?
Finally, how many full-auto weapons lost per year will be an acceptable number?
TR
" The unit of 350 cops will be specially trained in high-tech weaponry to deal with protests, “lone wolf” attacks and evolving threats posed by terrorists, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported.
They will be specially trained.
TR your comments are dead on.
I think it is the subjects that are being trained... slowly AND surely.
As this story has unfolded, it has been interesting to note the shot placement.
It was reported that one officer was shot in the shoulder, the other officer was grazed on the cheek. imo, the shooter wanted to kill these two officer, they were misplaced head shots.
I have no particular insight into the above and latest shooting in Ferguson. The NEWS reports shots came from approximately 120-125 yards away and were of a pistol caliber. Witness state they heard 4 to 5 shots? That is an almost unbelievable hit ratio from that distance with a pistol. Its better to be lucky than good or the shooter had some skills....time will tell....possibly.
... That is an almost unbelievable hit ratio from that distance with a pistol. ....
Hit ratio? You're assuming the shooter aimed at those officers.
It all depends on the target density. A good size grouping of officers and the shooter, if he/she used a pistol, just points, shoots and prays to the earth mother.
And now they are trying to shift the focus to white militias.
Hit ratio? You're assuming the shooter aimed at those officers.
It all depends on the target density. A good size grouping of officers and the shooter, if he/she used a pistol, just points, shoots and prays to the earth mother.
And now they are trying to shift the focus to white militias.
Yes I agree....i suppose that's what I was trying to say about the "luck" of the hits. Did this guy just spray and pray into a dense crowd or did he take aim and get those hits? Might not matter too much but just curious.
Ohamsandwich, has announced "reductions" ... Also looks like he is using racial motives and the race card as to why.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/obama-announces-restrictions-on-distribution-military-style-equipment-to-police/ :munchin
Sorry title should say "reductions" and not "No more."
Streck-Fu
07-23-2015, 09:40
Former officer indicted for lying on warrant to get raid authorized that resulted in toddler burned......LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/us/georgia-indictment-flash-bang-case/)
A former Habersham County, Georgia, deputy sheriff's false statements to a judge last year set in motion a chain of events that led to the critical injury of a toddler, according to a federal indictment filed Wednesday in district court.
In May 2014, Nikki Autry and a team of special agents and informants from the local Narcotics Criminal Investigation and Suppression Team were "attempting undercover narcotics buys." Autry presented an affidavit to a magistrate judge falsely swearing that a "true and reliable informant" had bought a small amount of methamphetamine at a residence.
Based on the erroneous information she presented, which also included claims of "heavy traffic in and out of the residence," the judge issued Autry a "no knock" search warrant.
When a SWAT team executing that warrant found the front door blocked, one of the officers tossed a flash-bang grenade inside the residence. Once inside the home, the SWAT team realized a portable playpen had been blocking the door, and the flash-bang grenade had landed where a 19-month-old was sleeping, eventually exploding on the child's pillow.
The toddler spent weeks in a burn unit in a medically induced coma.
The SWAT team, made up of six or seven officers from the sheriff's department and the Cornelia Police Department, entered the Cornelia residence of Wanis Thonetheva on the morning of May 28.
A confidential informant hours earlier had purchased methamphetamine at the house, the sheriff said.
Because Thonetheva had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said.
When the SWAT team hit the home's front door with a battering ram, it resisted as if something was up against it, the sheriff said, so one of the officers threw the flash-bang grenade inside the residence.
Once inside the house, the SWAT team realized it was a portable playpen blocking the door, and the flash-bang grenade had landed inside where a 19-month-old was sleeping, the sheriff said.
That story is very inflamatory IMHO. While the facts of the case include the team throwing a flash-bang that burned the infant, that unfortunate and hopefully unintended event occurred during the attempted arrest of a drug dealer with a previous weapons charge.
I had to dig quite a bit to find out anything about this besides the infant being wounded.
Authorities in Habersham County arrested five people last week at the home of a suspected drug dealer — among them was the uncle of “Baby Bou Bou,” the toddler injured last May during the execution of a controversial no-knock warrant.
According to a news release issued by the Appalachian Regional Drug Enforcement Office, members of that team, the Habersham County Sheriff’s Office and the Georgia Department of Corrections were acting on resident complaints about “illegal narcotic activity” when they visited the Demorest home of 41-year-old Bruce Reaves. Once inside, authorities seized half an ounce of methamphetamine and additional quantities of marijuana, oxycodone and dilaudid, the news release said.
A total of five people were arrested, including Reaves and 31-year-old Wanis Thonetheva.
Source (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/uncle-of-baby-bou-bou-among-5-charged-in-habersham/nkzNg/)
What is the real story here? The horrible evil po-lice and their counter civil-rights hi-speed gear and tactics?
Is it the collateral damage caused by misapplied tactics and misused weaponry?
Should the police department have waited until the subjects had left the house and risked a car chase or shoot out in a less contained environment?
Or maybe, just like the character Ivelda Drumgo in Hannibal (who walked around with a baby and an uzi in a sling on her chest) , some vile filth drug dealers put a baby in front of the door to keep the five-oh out.
^^^^^ Did you miss "deputy sheriff's false statements to a judge last year set in motion a chain of events that led to the critical injury of a toddler"?
The Reaper
07-23-2015, 11:35
I wasn't there, but it would seem to me to be a lot easier to pick her up when she was leaving the house. Block the car and roll her up.
TR
^^^^^ Did you miss "deputy sheriff's false statements to a judge last year set in motion a chain of events that led to the critical injury of a toddler"?
No sinjefe, I did not miss that.
In my badly worded attempt to draw attention to other aspects of this case and the misinformation so commonly present in the media, I neglected to address that item.
No sinjefe, I did not miss that.
In my badly worded attempt to draw attention to other aspects of this case and the misinformation so commonly present in the media, I neglected to address that item.
That story is very inflamatory IMHO. While the facts of the case include the team throwing a flash-bang that burned the infant, that unfortunate and hopefully unintended event occurred during the attempted arrest of a drug dealer with a previous weapons charge.
I had to dig quite a bit to find out anything about this besides the infant being wounded.
What is the real story here? The horrible evil po-lice and their counter civil-rights hi-speed gear and tactics?
Is it the collateral damage caused by misapplied tactics and misused weaponry?
Should the police department have waited until the subjects had left the house and risked a car chase or shoot out in a less contained environment?
Or maybe, just like the character Ivelda Drumgo in Hannibal (who walked around with a baby and an uzi in a sling on her chest) , some vile filth drug dealers put a baby in front of the door to keep the five-oh out.I think that you greatly undermine your efforts to draw attention to "misinformation" propagated by the media IRT this incident
by adopting the patois of an undisclosed group to make a point about Wanis Thonetheva,
by using a fictitious event to make a point the use of deadly force in apprehending a suspect, and, further,
by missing the point of the opening scene of Hannibal (2001): the firefight ensues because Bolton, a police officer, blows off Starling's order,
[if you're referring to the book you missed two crucial points: (a) Starling asks for the location of Drumgo's kids, and, (b) moments later, makes sure she doesn't judge locals by their looks alone.] and,
by disregarding the previous posts in this thread as well as many other threads on this BB about LEOs operating beyond the scope of the law and using paramilitary tactics when lawful and less confrontational approaches may work just as well.
The Reaper
07-24-2015, 21:04
To serve, and to protect?
TR
In Iraq, I raided insurgents. In Virginia, the police raided me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
By Alex Horton July 24 at 2:05 PM
Alex Horton is a member of the Defense Council at the Truman National Security Project. He served as an infantryman in Iraq with the Army's 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.
I got home from the bar soon after Saturday night bled into Sunday morning and fell into bed. I didn't wake up until three police officers barged into my apartment, barking their presence at my door. They sped down the hallway to my bedroom, their service pistols drawn and leveled at me.
It was just past 9 a.m., and I was still under the covers. The only visible target was my head.
In the shouting and commotion, I felt an instant familiarity. I'd been here before. This was a raid.
I had done this a few dozen times myself, 6,000 miles away from my Alexandria, Va., apartment. As an Army infantryman in Iraq, I'd always been on the trigger side of the weapon. Now that I was on the barrel side, I recalled basic training's most important firearm rule: Aim only at something you intend to kill.
I had conducted the same kind of raid on suspected bombmakers and high-value insurgents. But the Fairfax County officers in my apartment were aiming their weapons at a target whose rap sheet included parking tickets and an overdue library book.
My situation was terrifying. Lying facedown in bed, I knew that any move I made could be viewed as a threat. Instinct told me to get up and protect myself. My training told me that if I did, these officers would shoot me dead.
In a panic, I asked the officers what was going on but got no immediate answer. Their tactics were similar to the ones I used to clear rooms during the height of guerilla warfare in Iraq. I could almost admire it - their fluid sweep from the bedroom doorway to the distant corner. They stayed clear of one another's lines of fire in case they needed to empty their Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistols into me.
They were well-trained, their supervisor later told me. But I knew that means little when adrenaline is injected into an imminent-danger scenario, real or imagined. Triggers are pulled. Mistakes are made.
I spread my arms out to either side. An officer jumped onto my bed and locked handcuffs onto my wrists. The officers rolled me from side to side, searching my boxers for weapons, then yanked me up to sit on the edge of the bed.
At first, I was stunned. I searched my memory for any incident that would justify a police raid. Then, it clicked.
Earlier in the week, the managers of my apartment complex moved me to a model unit while a crew repaired a leak in my dishwasher. But they hadn't informed my temporary neighbors. So when one resident noticed the door slightly cracked open to what he presumed was an unoccupied apartment, he looked in, saw me sleeping and called the police to report a squatter.
Sitting on the edge of the bed dressed only in underwear, I laughed. The situation was ludicrous and embarrassing. My only mistake had been failing to make sure the apartment door was completely closed before I threw myself into bed the night before.
I told the officers to check my driver's license, nodding toward my khaki pants on the floor. It showed my address at a unit in the same complex. As the fog of their chaotic entry lifted, the officers realized it had been an unfortunate error. They walked me into the living room and removed the cuffs, though two continued to stand over me as the third contacted management to confirm my story. Once they were satisfied, they left.
When I later visited the Fairfax County police station to gather details about what went wrong, I met the shift commander, Lt. Erik Rhoads. I asked why his officers hadn't contacted management before they raided the apartment. Why did they classify the incident as a forced entry, when the information they had suggested something innocuous? Why not evaluate the situation before escalating it?
Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers' actions "on point." It's not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.
I noted that the officers could have sought information from the apartment complex's security guard that would have resolved the matter without violence. But he played down the importance of such information: "It doesn't matter whatsoever what was said or not said at the security booth.
This is where Rhoads is wrong. We've seen this troubling approach to law enforcement nationwide, in militarized police responses to nonviolent protesters and in fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens. The culture that encourages police officers to engage their weapons before their minds devalues information-gathering and endorses the mind-set that nothing, including citizen safety, is more important than officers' personal security. That approach has caused public trust in law enforcement to deteriorate.
It's the same culture that characterized the early phases of the Iraq war, in which I served a 15-month tour in 2006 and 2007. Soldiers left their sprawling bases in armored vehicles, leveling buildings with missile strikes and shooting up entire blocks during gun battles with insurgents, only to return to their protected bases and do it all again hours later.
The short-sighted notion that we should always protect ourselves first endangered us more in the long term. It was a flawed strategy that could often create more insurgents than it stopped and inspired some Iraqis to hate us rather than help us.
In one instance in Baghdad, a stray round landed in a compound that our unit was building. An overzealous officer decided that we were under attack and ordered machine guns and grenade launchers to shoot at distant rooftops. A row of buildings caught fire, and we left our compound on foot, seeking to capture any injured fighters by entering structures choked with flames.
Instead, we found a man frantically pulling his furniture out of his house. "Thank you for your security!" he yelled in perfect English. He pointed to the billowing smoke. "This is what you call security?"
We didn't find any insurgents. There weren't any. But it was easy to imagine that we forged some in that fire. Similarly, when U.S. police officers use excessive force to control nonviolent citizens or respond to minor incidents, they lose supporters and public trust.
That's a problem, because law enforcement officers need the cooperation of the communities they patrol in order to do their jobs effectively. In the early stages of the war, the U.S. military overlooked that reality, as well. Leaders defined success as increasing military hold on geographic terrain, while the human terrain was the real battle. For example, when our platoon entered Iraq's volatile Diyala province in early 2007, children at a school plugged their ears just before an IED exploded beneath one of our vehicles. The kids knew what was coming, but they saw no reason to warn us. Instead, they watched us drive right into the ambush. One of our men died, and in the subsequent crossfire, several insurgents and children were killed. We saw Iraqis cheering and dancing at the blast crater as we left the area hours later.
With the U.S. effort in Iraq faltering, Gen. David Petraeus unveiled a new counterinsurgency strategy that year. He believed that showing more restraint during gunfights would help foster Iraqis' trust in U.S. forces and that forming better relationships with civilians would improve our intelligence-gathering. We refined our warrior mentality - the one that directed us to protect ourselves above all else - with a community-building component.
My unit began to patrol on foot almost exclusively, which was exceptionally more dangerous than staying inside our armored vehicles. We relinquished much of our personal security by entering dimly lit homes in insurgent strongholds. We didn't know if the hand we would shake at each door held a detonator to a suicide vest or a small glass of hot, sugary tea.
But as a result, we better understood our environment and earned the allegiance of some people in it. The benefits quickly became clear. One day during that bloody summer, insurgents loaded a car with hundreds of pounds of explosives and parked it by a school. They knew that we searched every building for hidden weapons caches, and they waited for us to gather near the car. But as we turned the corner to head toward the school, several Iraqis told us about the danger. We evacuated civilians from the area and called in a helicopter gunship to fire at the vehicle.
The resulting explosion pulverized half the building and blasted the car's engine block through two cement walls. Shrapnel dropped like jagged hail as far as a quarter-mile away.
If we had not risked our safety by patrolling the neighborhood on foot, trusting our sources and gathering intelligence, it would have been a massacre. But no one was hurt in the blast.
(Cont. at link above.)
blacksmoke
07-24-2015, 21:17
I had a real problem with the Bland case in Tx the other day. A woman pulled over for failing to use her turn signal ends up in jail for 3 days and kills herself. I only watched part of the footage, but read some of the excertps about how she refused to put out her cigarette and was immediately ordered out of the car by the officer. I would argue that that was an illegal order,since police can only order you out of your car for "their safety", and unlawful imprisonment if that is in fact the case. This is America, we are supposed to be free.
I had a real problem with the Bland case in Tx the other day. A woman pulled over for failing to use her turn signal ends up in jail for 3 days and kills herself. I only watched part of the footage, but read some of the excertps about how she refused to put out her cigarette and was immediately ordered out of the car by the officer. I would argue that that was an illegal order,since police can only order you out of your car for "their safety", and unlawful imprisonment if that is in fact the case. This is America, we are supposed to be free.
You might want to watch the whole video and then comment. Plus pay attention to some other aspects of the story.
More than likely she was only going to get a warning, but she decided to argue with the officer who had been polite up until then.
Bland told her mother, “My purpose is to go back to Texas and stop all of the injustices in the South.”
She admitted on the booking form that she had tried to commit suicide in the past.
Motive: To stop all of the injustices in the South.
Opportunity: Being pulled over for a minor infraction and escalating it to an arrest.
Means: Using the seemingly senseless arrest to commit suicide while in custody.
Food for thought.
Pat
blacksmoke
07-24-2015, 22:22
I don't get for the life of me, how a police officer could tell a person to put out their cigarette legally? I understand manners, and the woman obviously had her problems, I heard about the cutting scars from the autopsy. I saw that snipet of one of her last conversations. I don't see how that could be a master plan. I think the woman was simply troubled and looking for a better life.
blacksmoke
07-24-2015, 22:44
"Yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn't stop you from giving me a ticket, so...." "Are you done?"
"You asked me what's wrong and I told you, so now I'm done, yeah."
"OK." Long pause by officer, "You mind puttin out your cigarette, please..inaudible?" "I'm in my car, why do I have to put out my cigarette?"
"Well you can step on out now."
"I don't have to step out of my car."
"Step out of the car."
"Why am I...no,don't, no you don't have the right..."
He says he's giving her a lawful order, and I don't understand that. His safety was in no way compromised.
You might want to watch the whole video and then comment. Plus pay attention to some other aspects of the story.
More than likely she was only going to get a warning, but she decided to argue with the officer who had been polite up until then.
Bland told her mother, “My purpose is to go back to Texas and stop all of the injustices in the South.”
She admitted on the booking form that she had tried to commit suicide in the past.
Motive: To stop all of the injustices in the South.
Opportunity: Being pulled over for a minor infraction and escalating it to an arrest.
Means: Using the seemingly senseless arrest to commit suicide while in custody.
Food for thought.
Pat
Taking one for the team, Her own personal Jihad of sorts minus a suicide vest or vbid...........it could never happen in Amerika
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/southaven-mississippi-hogtie-troy-goode/
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/07/20/memphis-man-dies-police-custody-southaven/30411343/
Cliff notes:
Chemical Engineer - white guy. Drunk (not driving) - stops in parking lot and acts "drunk". Police hogtie him -they lied and said they only cuffed and put leg irons on him despite the videos. Says he can't breathe, wife says he has asthma and needs inhaler. Police threaten to arrest her and any family when he is taken to hospital if they show up to check on him. Dies either on way to hospital or in hospital.
Taking one for the team, Her own personal Jihad of sorts minus a suicide vest or vbid...........it could never happen in Amerika
Seriously? You really think this?
I don't get for the life of me, how a police officer could tell a person to put out their cigarette legally?
It's rather standard "street procedure" for police. Unless engaged in an obviously casual, friendly conversation, an officer will usually not want a civilian holding a lit cigarette in their hand if within arms reach. You'll note that the matter of the cigarette came up as the officer was filling out a traffic citation, and (presumably) preparing to hand it to the driver for signature. During my years on the street, I followed that procedure if a conversation appeared to have the potential to turn into a confrontation.
blacksmoke
07-25-2015, 13:02
It's rather standard "street procedure" for police. Unless engaged in an obviously casual, friendly conversation, an officer will usually not want a civilian holding a lit cigarette in their hand if within arms reach. You'll note that the matter of the cigarette came up as the officer was filling out a traffic citation, and (presumably) preparing to hand it to the driver for signature. During my years on the street, I followed that procedure if a conversation appeared to have the potential to turn into a confrontation.
With all due respect, that method in and of itself is troubling. It states that there is the possibility to assault him with her cigarette while siting in her car, unless she puts it out she is a threat. She is upset about a traffic ticket, seems to me to be a normal reaction, not a nice one, but not out of the ordinary. "Maam if you burn me with that cigarette it will be considered assault on a police officer." Was ordering her to put it out a lawful order?
Seriously? You really think this?
It is possible it was due to mental illness, SSRI intake or police brutality.
Honestly I don't know what she did or didn't do, but I do believe there are people in all walks of life that are willing to take one for their team to further their agenda or merely for the purpose of spite... If you think there are not or it cannot happen in the Good Ole USA I believe you are kidding yourself.
With all due respect, that method in and of itself is troubling. .... "Maam if you burn me with that cigarette it will be considered assault on a police officer." Was ordering her to put it out a lawful order?
Not to wax dramatic, but the same could be said for "Sir, if you shoot me with that 12 gauge....." instead of "put it down". ;)
An old "bar fighter" routine often includes flicking a cigarette into someone's face to gain advantage.
Yes, it's a lawful order. A number (and I don't have it) of officers have been burned while reaching into a car to hand a driver a ticket.
I've had my butt chewed by a Sgt. who rolled up on a scene where we were retrieving a young offender from his Grandma's home, though every step was by the book. Grandma was argumentative, but remained sitting in her rocking chair with her knitting. No sweat.
The Sgt. had a different viewpoint toward the 12-16 inch knitting needles I had left sitting in her lap.
Of course, after ordering the driver to put down or put out the cigarette, you then hand them a pointed object to use to sign the ticket. :D
blacksmoke
07-25-2015, 18:22
I believe the officer was wrong in this case. The woman was sitting in her car, not a threat, and smoking the entire time. It isn't until he paused because he became upset that the cigarette became an issue. A cigarette in a bar fight and a woman at a traffic stop can in no way be compared. She was obviously not a threat. If she was the whole story would be different. That was a cowardly act in my opinion.
I believe the officer was wrong in this case. The woman was sitting in her car, not a threat, and smoking the entire time. It isn't until he paused because he became upset that the cigarette became an issue. A cigarette in a bar fight and a woman at a traffic stop can in no way be compared. She was obviously not a threat. If she was the whole story would be different. That was a cowardly act in my opinion.
I'd hate to be on a jury with you. You are one of those people that attach like a barnacle to an opinion and will not be moved regardless of the evidence or law.
Pat
blacksmoke
07-25-2015, 18:50
I specifically put the conversation verbatim in the thread between the officer and Ms. Bland. Having spent a few years in an MP unit and knowing the attitude that some police have "I'll find a reason to arrest if I want" I feel strongly that her arrest was unwarranted, even illegal. John Stossel also had a special about police arresting citizens for no good reason, having to release them sometimes days later, and there being NO LEGAL RECOURSE against the offending officer.
She was obviously not a threat. If she was the whole story would be different. That was a cowardly act in my opinion.
She was willing to die to "get her point across". But, she wouldn't have burned someone's hand?
Simply handing her a traffic citation required being physically close. It's his duty to do that. Bar, car, or whatever location, there's no reason NOT to put something aside that can cause injury.
I'll not argue further with your viewpoint, though I worked with about 80 other officers who would have issued similar instructions to the driver.
I'll not argue further with your viewpoint, though I worked with about 80 other officers who would have issued similar instructions to the driver.
Then there are about 80 officers who should quit and find new jobs.
I was recently in a situation where a 24 yo young man in our upper middle class neighborhood, a diagnosed schizophrenic off his meds, was acting in a way that frightened his parents. We all gatherered around from the commotion and when his mom said "I can't handle him, I think I should call the police!", one neighbor blurted out "No! They'll shoot him!"
You make take solace that your co-workers think the way you do, but you've lost the trust of your constituency. When it's "us against them" and the "them" includes right-wing conservatives, maybe you should reconsider your approach.
Just curious, but for certain orders, could it maybe help if the officer explained to the person why they need them to follow the order for officer safety, and then if the person still refuses, go from there? For example:
Officer: "Ma'am, I need you to put out your cigarette."
Woman: What a ridiculous order. Stupid officer on a power trip. "I don't want to put out my cigarette."
Officer: "Ma'am, the reason I need you to put out your cigarette is for officer safety. Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces. It is not me trying to make your day harder."
Then go from there...?
There are options. One is to approach an individual as a "law enforcement machine". The other is to approach as an equal human. Each has it's drawbacks.
The very authoritative individual (command presence, in PD terms) is statistically challenged less often as that which transpires is not "personal". That seems to work best with those who have a chip on their shoulder or who are accustomed to fighting with their equals.
The understanding human is getting down to a personal level of "let's discuss this", which in some ways is an invitation to argue, or at least seems to lead to more arguments and the citizen possibly taking the interaction as a personal affront.
And the trick is to size up the person and situation within the first few seconds. :)
The response to "Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces." could have been "Oh, I see.", and de-escalation, or "Do I look like that kind of person?", with the interaction going downhill.
The other trick is to be right every time. :)
Then there are about 80 officers who should quit and find new jobs.
You make take solace that your co-workers think the way you do, but you've lost the trust of your constituency. When it's "us against them" and the "them" includes right-wing conservatives, maybe you should reconsider your approach.
Perhaps a rather sweeping assertion.
LEOs are seldom called to pay someone a compliment. Usually there's a conflict between persons or an illegal act. If you see "put down the cigarette, scissors, knitting needle" as an atrocity, so be it.
And, yes, if someone is acting in an aggressive and frightening way, then your local PD is likely to have officers whose response includes preserving their own lives. Dangerous people aren't part of the PD's "constituency". The idea of sacrificing your life if the aggressor is "really a nice boy", isn't part of the deal.
And, it would make recruiting for the job a real B*tch. :p
GratefulCitizen
07-25-2015, 22:36
Militarization of the police is a symptom.
What are the causes?
IMO, chief among them is that the scale/scope of their mission is far too large.
Not every problem requires a law/regulation as a solution.
Not every violation of law/regulation requires police enforcement as a solution.
Big government is big government, even at the local level.
blacksmoke
07-26-2015, 06:49
Anyone upset about a traffic ticket while holding a cigarette is a dangerous individual....Any time an officer has the authority to arrest someone they're in the right. We all witnessed this confrontation, the woman wasn't a threat. Trying to argue and reason otherwise is part of the reason we have this thread. He arrested her out of spite, but then again, he is a police officer, they can do that. Also I should add, a state of affairs where you feel comfortable telling a large group of adults that it is dangerous to hand a ticket to a person with a cigarette, for the officer involved, and they can arrest you if they feel threatened, knowing we all witnessed the exact encounter is very telling about the mentality police have toward the citizenry.
Tell me its probable that the officer was in danger, and I'll be convinced that the woman should have been arrested. Telling us "she was willing to die for her cause" is rediculous, without evidence she was an insurgent operative, not just some troubled woman who was looking for a better life.
Bleed Green
07-26-2015, 14:00
Call it the way that I was brought up combined with watching this over the course of the last 30 years. Just because you think it is illegal, unfair, biased or whatever it is just a cold hard fact that you running your mouth is more than likely going to lead to somebody laying hands on you followed by cuffs and there is a more than probable chance that you will be headed to the nearest jail cell. If you insist on being a road side Clarence Darrow, the chances of you getting arrested increase exponentially as you are not the one who is driving the bus that you, by your illegal actions, put yourself on in the first place.
... it is just a cold hard fact that you running your mouth is more than likely going to lead to somebody laying hands on you followed by cuffs and there is a more than probable chance that you will be headed to the nearest jail cell. If you insist on being a road side Clarence Darrow, the chances of you getting arrested increase exponentially as you are not the one who is driving the bus that you, by your illegal actions, put yourself on in the first place.
Who would have thought running your mouth is illegal these days.
Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.
RCummings
07-26-2015, 14:54
Interesting take on the story, from TPM,
As the video of Sandra Bland’s arrest makes its way into homes and offices around the country, people are aghast that the failure to use a turn signal led to a woman’s arrest and, ultimately, her death by what officials have identified as suicide. People want to know if the officer’s actions—asking that Bland put out her cigarette and demanding that she step out of her car—were legal. But that’s the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking whether it was good policing.
As a former police officer, and now as a legal scholar who studies policing, I know the law is not a moral compass. An officer’s actions can be entirely lawful, and yet fail to meet the high standards that we should expect from our law enforcement professionals, our community guardians. When we focus on whether the police acted lawfully, we are missing the chance to ask whether they acted appropriately. As I watch the dash camera video of the traffic stop, I can’t help but think of the distinction between lawful policing and rightful policing.
Here’s what we see in the video: After issuing a warning ticket in an earlier traffic stop, Trooper Brian Encinia is driving through an intersection to within several car lengths of a vehicle in front of him, Sandra Bland’s car. Seconds later, Bland changes from the left lane to the right lane, but she does so without signaling. Within ten seconds, Encinia pulls behind her and activates his overhead lights (this is when the audio recording comes online, which happens automatically when the lights are activated). About 20 seconds after the lane change, Bland has pulled over.
The initial portion of the traffic stop is entirely unremarkable. Encinia walks up to the passenger-side window—not an unusual approach—and identifies the reason for the stop before asking for Bland’s driver’s license and insurance. He asks her a few questions—how long she has been in Texas (“Got here yesterday”) and where she’s headed (“Work”). He asks Bland for her driver’s license a second time. Although neither Encinia nor Bland sound happy, both are polite. He calls her “ma’am.” She answers his questions and apologizes for not providing her driver’s license, which she thought she had already handed him. He says, “Give me a few minutes, alright?” before walking back to his car.
Almost five minutes later, Encinia walks up to the driver’s side of Bland’s car carrying a ticket book. Almost immediately, he sees something that makes him ask, “You okay?” When Bland tells him that she’s waiting on him, he replies, “You seem very irritated.” She is, and she explains why: She switched lanes because she saw him accelerating behind her and wanted to let him pass. “So, yeah, I am a little irritated,” she says. “But that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket.”
It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.
In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.
But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.
Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.
When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.
But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.
To be fair, I don’t know Encinia’s reasons for having Bland step out of the car. Perhaps he would have done so regardless, even if she hadn’t been smoking, although the video suggests otherwise (he did not have the driver step out during the previous stop, and he did not put his pen away and his ticket pad down until after Bland refused to put out her cigarette, indicating that he was originally planning on talking over the warning ticket while she sat in her car). Regardless, it is problematic when officers focus on compliance—expecting people they interact with to be entirely deferential—to such an extent that they neglect cooperation, which must be earned.
Imagine the potential change in the tone of the encounter if Encinia had said, “You’re right, you don’t have to, and I’m sorry to ask, but cigarette smoke sets off my asthma. Would you mind putting it out or in the ashtray, please, just while I’m talking to you?” Or if, upon hearing her refusal, he had simply acknowledged it and turned to the warning ticket. Either way, he would have been signaling to Bland that he respected her control over at least some aspects of the encounter, rather than demanding she recognize his dominance.
This is a particularly important point to keep in mind given the potential for race, gender and class dynamics to affect police encounters. We all—officer and civilian, black and white—have implicit and unconscious biases that affect the way we perceive the world and how we set our expectations. For example, officers may expect more deference from a black woman driving an older car than they do from a white attorney in an expensive D.C. neighborhood. And as a result, they may react to a lack of deference very differently.
When Encinia ordered Bland to exit her vehicle, she refused. “I don’t have to step out of my car.” Rather than handling the remainder of the stop with her sitting in the car, or explaining why he wanted her to step out of the car, or attempting to obtain her cooperation, or calmly explaining the law, Encinia simply invoked his legal authority, shouting at one point, “I gave you a lawful order.” He was right. It was lawful. And when Bland did not obey, she was refusing a lawful order, a crime under Texas law. Her arrest, like the confrontations that led up to it, may have been lawful, but it was entirely avoidable had Encinia chosen a different approach.
We all deserve more than legal policing. We deserve good policing.
Seth Stoughton is a law professor at the University of South Carolina, where he is affiliated with the Rule of Law Collaborative. He served as a police officer and investigator for more than seven years. Follow him on Twitter @PoliceLawProf.
Anyone upset about a traffic ticket while holding a cigarette is a dangerous individual.... Also I should add, a state of affairs where you feel comfortable telling a large group of adults that it is dangerous to hand a ticket to a person with a cigarette, for the officer involved, and they can arrest you if they feel threatened, knowing we all witnessed the exact encounter is very telling about the mentality police have toward the citizenry.
I'll simplify that for you. "Anyone is a dangerous individual". Easier?
I have a liberal nephew (where did we go wrong? :rolleyes: ) We had a disagreement over an officer who shot a man approaching him with a knife.
His argument was that 9 times out of 10, a man with a knife can be safely disarmed by someone well trained. (possibly right, his assertion, not mine).
His sister married a police officer, and hubby's question to him was "So, if I face that situation 50 times in my years on the force, how is that going to work out for me?"
You have some "great solutions" for police work. Do you have a good answer for hubby-cop's question?
I pop the circuit breakers downstairs, and then treat the outlet as if it's live. I take my grandkids to a park, and watch every nearby adult as if they're a potential predator. I haven't had a flat tire in years, and air up my spare regularly.
And, during 364 days in the jungle, nobody shot me. That "other" day was a B*tch. :D
So, if you can identify which day, which person, which relaxed approach is going to be "the one" that puts you in the hospital, you'd make a great cop.
Otherwise, after a few years and sharing the experiences of the "old-timers", you'd be a lot like the rest of the guys on the force, I'd wager.
Bleed Green
07-26-2015, 17:36
Who would have thought running your mouth is illegal these days.
Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.
I would not have thought it was illegal last time I heard a hammer pulled back as I was told one more word and my head was going to be blown off. That was the Disney version mind you all for 57 in a 55 and me trying to get out of the car since I had weapons carried legally in plain view. That was my lesson in releasing things my dad had taught me. The Clarence Darrow act played much better with the Lt. That was in 88 and I haven't forgot it again...:eek:
blacksmoke
07-26-2015, 19:04
I'll simplify that for you. "Anyone is a dangerous individual". Easier?
I have a liberal nephew (where did we go wrong? :rolleyes: ) We had a disagreement over an officer who shot a man approaching him with a knife.
His argument was that 9 times out of 10, a man with a knife can be safely disarmed by someone well trained. (possibly right, his assertion, not mine).
His sister married a police officer, and hubby's question to him was "So, if I face that situation 50 times in my years on the force, how is that going to work out for me?"
You have some "great solutions" for police work. Do you have a good answer for hubby-cop's question?
I pop the circuit breakers downstairs, and then treat the outlet as if it's live. I take my grandkids to a park, and watch every nearby adult as if they're a potential predator. I haven't had a flat tire in years, and air up my spare regularly.
And, during 364 days in the jungle, nobody shot me. That "other" day was a B*tch. :D
So, if you can identify which day, which person, which relaxed approach is going to be "the one" that puts you in the hospital, you'd make a great cop.
Otherwise, after a few years and sharing the experiences of the "old-timers", you'd be a lot like the rest of the guys on the force, I'd wager.
My argument stems from the fact that she already had been smoking, must have been because he doesn't say "don't light that up", and decided to have her step out after she gives him some lip. She seems distraught, she doesn't have a knife. she is sitting in her car. I don't see evidence she's going to pull a Jim West move on the cop. And another question to ask. If she simply stepped out, and got detained/searched/arrested, what what have been the reason? What defense against unlawful search and siezure does she have? Oh I pulled her out becasue she was smoking...
My argument stems from the fact that she already had been smoking, must have been because he doesn't say "don't light that up", and decided to have her step out after she gives him some lip. She seems distraught, she doesn't have a knife. she is sitting in her car. I don't see evidence she's going to pull a Jim West move on the cop. And another question to ask. If she simply stepped out, and got detained/searched/arrested, what what have been the reason? What defense against unlawful search and siezure does she have? Oh I pulled her out becasue she was smoking...
You are starting to read like a troll. Some here have posted their arguments supporting the officer asking her to put out her cigarette, others have countered, and the rebuttals have been presented. It should end at that since no minds will be changed.
Yet, you have not addressed her comments about moving to Texas to "stop all of the injustices in the South". (Lofty goal for one young lady, wouldn't you think?) And the fact that she stated that she had attempted suicide in the past and that her arms had marks possibly supporting that claim.
How about this tweet on 8 April:
Sandra Bland
@a_sandybeach AT FIRST THEY USED A NOOSE, NOW ALL THEY DO IS SHOOT #BlackLivesMatter #SandySpeaks https://instagram.com/p/1N70zQgwZp/
Pat
Tree Potato
07-26-2015, 22:34
Interesting take on the story, from TPM,
...
We all deserve more than legal policing. We deserve good policing.
"Can" vs. "should" is a tough concept for a lot of people. Anyone in a position of authority needs to understand the difference and act appropriately, otherwise they're part of the problem.
Are LEO recruiting efforts aimed more at those who do things because they can, vs. recruting those who consider whether they should?
And what about LEO training? Do the various police academies put much effort into educating new officers on using discretion? Just because an officer can do something legally doesn't mean they should. It seems many interactions with the public lean more toward muscle and intimidation than critical thinking and being a part of the community, which only deepens the us vs. them divide.
blacksmoke
07-27-2015, 05:57
You are starting to read like a troll. Some here have posted their arguments supporting the officer asking her to put out her cigarette, others have countered, and the rebuttals have been presented. It should end at that since no minds will be changed.
Yet, you have not addressed her comments about moving to Texas to "stop all of the injustices in the South". (Lofty goal for one young lady, wouldn't you think?) And the fact that she stated that she had attempted suicide in the past and that her arms had marks possibly supporting that claim.
How about this tweet on 8 April:
Sandra Bland
@a_sandybeach AT FIRST THEY USED A NOOSE, NOW ALL THEY DO IS SHOOT #BlackLivesMatter #SandySpeaks https://instagram.com/p/1N70zQgwZp/
Pat
Sure call me a troll if you wish. My statements are meant to provoke thought about the situation at hand. Rise of the Warrior Cop is the thread title, I guess musings about the latest officer involved story leading to a death may not be the most appropriate place to put it but better than starting another thread.
My guess is that you don't personally know many black people. After most of the events like this, posts like that are all over social media by a variety of my black friends, some of whom are regular people, some are lazy POS's, and some of whom are U.S. Army senior NCO's and Officers. Here's my take on it: Ms. Bland is another person with a difficult life, and is making grandiose statements, not a sleeper cell black power/anti-government insurgent.
For me one of the underlining problems with today's police is not getting enough HUMINT on a subject. It takes time, and today Americans are all about self gratification or here and right now.
SO Police are acting fast and not getting the real story.
Here's my take on it: Ms. Bland is another person with a difficmaking grandiose statements, not a sleeper cell black power/anti-government insurgentult life, and is .
Could one make the same case for Dylann Roof and John Russell "Rusty" Houser?
Dylann Roof and John Russell "Rusty" Houser are other persons with a difficmaking grandiose statements, not a sleeper cell white power/anti-government insurgentult life, and is .
therunningwolf
07-27-2015, 09:16
"Can" vs. "should" is a tough concept for a lot of people. Anyone in a position of authority needs to understand the difference and act appropriately, otherwise they're part of the problem.
Are LEO recruiting efforts aimed more at those who do things because they can, vs. recruting those who consider whether they should?
And what about LEO training? Do the various police academies put much effort into educating new officers on using discretion? Just because an officer can do something legally doesn't mean they should. It seems many interactions with the public lean more toward muscle and intimidation than critical thinking and being a part of the community, which only deepens the us vs. them divide.
Recruiting efforts around here go two ways, either you apply with a department and they make the effort in trying to vet you, or you self sponsor the academy. If you self sponsor you are 100% guaranteed a job upon graduation unless you a purely a dirtbag (happened to two in my class, they will never be working in law enforcement) because A) it's cheaper to hire a self sponsor then to pay to send a guy and B) it shows you can take initiative.
A good number of departments have civil service tests one has to pass in order to be hired as well as background checks and in some cases psychological evaluations.
On the subject of training, it verys from academy to academy. I chose to self sponsor the best academy in my state, it is CALEA certified (the only one in the state) and has an awesome staff. Our instructors teach critical thinking along with a metric ton of other information, but, the academy is only 11 weeks (480 hours) that's just not enough time to teach everything or even 10% of what you need to know in this careerfield. To make matters worse, departments around here are mostly poor, thus for a lot of guys the academy is the only training they will ever get. For you military guys, think it like going to basic, and then being assigned as what ever your MOS is having never been to AIT and receiving little to no upgrade training once you get to your unit. The few departments that can get up the money for some training try to focus on skills that improve an officers ability to survive a lethal encounter. Sure some departments can occasionally get free training offered to them, but this is usually few and far between.
Thus if your department isn't offering the training your only option is to seek it yourself, but then you have the crowd that is either to lazy to do it or like a lot of guys, just don't have the money or time (wife, kids, bills, working 120 hours in 2 weeks as well as a second or third job etc) and what little time they have they just want to rest or spend it with family.
My guess is that you don't personally know many black people.
Bad guess! It's just that my black friends studied hard, work hard and don't feel that they are owed anything from anybody or that "the man" is out to get them. But then, most of them grew up in the '50s and '60s. Go figure.
Pat
I lived in Texas for 20 years and never knew it was an arrestable offense to not comply with an order to not smoke cigarettes/cigars while sitting in your own car/truck if you're older than 18 years of age and it poses no public threat.
I'd better warn my friends who still live in Texas and like to smoke while driving their cars/trucks around the state. :rolleyes:
Richard
Streck-Fu
07-27-2015, 11:50
^^^^^ Did you miss "deputy sheriff's false statements to a judge last year set in motion a chain of events that led to the critical injury of a toddler"?
More information is coming out that the very premise of the raid was a complete fabrication.....LINK (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/27/lessons-from-the-drug-raid-that-burned-a-georgia-toddler/)
According to federal prosecutors, none of these things were true. There either was no informant or Autry lied about what the informant said. There was no guard. There was no drug buy in the doorway. The GBI also denied at the time that it had approved the raid. The agency began investigating the case in June of last year but doesn’t appear to have issued a report.
In a sane world, Georgia officials would have learned from this case that violent, confrontational, forced-entry police raids are a terrible way to serve search warrants on people suspected of low-level drug crimes. In a sane world, we’d understand that because all parties to a drug transaction are consensual, there’s no direct victim to report the crime. Therefore, police must use informants, surveillance and undercover operations to get information. That makes the information rather unreliable. In a sane world, we’d understand that conducting volatile, nighttime raids based on dirty information is a good way to get people injured or killed, whether they’re drug dealers, drug users, cops or toddlers.
Instead, Terrell initially blamed the baby’s injuries on the suspected drug dealer, whom he called “no better than a domestic terrorist.” That was blame-shifting even if the suspect had been guilty. It was Terrell’s deputies who created the violence here, not the guy who allegedly sold a small amount of meth. Yet an assistant district attorney told CNN last year that he was considering charging the drug suspect for the injuries to the baby. And, of course, federal officials now say the guy never actually made the alleged drug sale in the first place. So Terrell’s deputies didn’t create violence as a disproportionate response to a consensual crime, they created violence for no reason at all.
Terrell then blamed the informant for providing bad information. But this indictment means the bad information never came from an informant. Terrell then told CNN that the baby’s parents “were aware of drug activity in the home.” (They were staying with their Georgia relatives because their house in Wisconsin had recently burned down.) This led some enforcement supporters to blame the baby’s parents for putting their kid in harm’s way, an argument reiterated in a Habersham County brief in response to the parents’ lawsuit. We now know that none of this is true.
But more broadly, the suspect himself was arrested at another residence, without a SWAT team and without incident. He clearly wasn’t the violent threat the officers had claimed him to be. So why deploy the commando tactics in the first place?
Combined, both cases cost the local governments well over $3 million in settlements. Ayers got $2 million. The toddler’s family got $1 million (which might cover the child’s medical expenses). The alleged drug transaction that led to the investigation ending in Ayers’s death was for $50 worth of cocaine. The transaction that nearly led to the death of the toddler was for $50 worth of meth. A dead pastor, a widowed wife, a fatherless baby, a disfigured toddler, $3 million in settlements, who knows how much money spent on investigations and legal fees . . . all over $100 in alleged drug sales.
blacksmoke
07-27-2015, 14:31
Richard, I completely agree.
I understand this is getting to be a touchy subject, and will leave my comments as previously stated. I mean no disrespect, I feel for the woman. If you take anything away from this conversation it is that I feel police detaining a person is psychologicaly equivalent to assaulting someone, and you ought to have a VERY good reason.
Paslode, I don't know what happened when you quoted me, but look back at your post, the time it was written, mine, and the time it was written. ???:confused:
Interaction between the police and the public has slowly devolved to the point where most of what the police say to the average person during a stop amounts to little more than...
"I'm Rick James, bitch"
...power's a hell of a drug
Richard, I completely agree.
I understand this is getting to be a touchy subject, and will leave my comments as previously stated. I mean no disrespect, I feel for the woman. If you take anything away from this conversation it is that I feel police detaining a person is psychologicaly equivalent to assaulting someone, and you ought to have a VERY good reason.
Paslode, I don't know what happened when you quoted me, but look back at your post, the time it was written, mine, and the time it was written. ???:confused:
I noticed big lag during word entry, must have been the NSA messing with time stamps ;)
The Reaper
07-27-2015, 16:13
I guess I should belabor the point again.
Like any other organization or group, there are bad cops. Denial damages credibility. Failure to act on bad cops destroys it.
Maybe this guy was just having a bad hair day, but he appears to me to have, at least in this case, overreacted badly to a challenge of his authority.
Until the police start taking care of their own bad apples, community support for LE will continue to erode. Too many cops I know abuse their privilege to excuse semi-criminal behavior themselves. I am certain that this has not escaped the notice of their co-workers, but most are still on the job years later.
On the other hand, Ms. Bland chose to kill herself, not sure why the cops are being blamed for that.
Not too many people want to take that job with the gun and the badge and clean-up society's messes, and seeing people at their very worst, while at a significant risk to their lives.
Kids are also not being brought up to respect the uniform, if not the wearer, and are looking for a confrontation from the start. 20 years ago, most people conducted themselves with respect in interacting with LE. Now the opposite seems to be true for many.
Bad cops exist, just like bad citizens. The screening process for selection and termination appears to be ineffective, and I suspect that unions have some role in that. In my opinion, multiple incidents of excessive use of force and payouts of millions of taxpayer dollars in judgements should result in consequences, including personal liability and if warranted, prosecution and incarceration. To do otherwise risks a complete collapse of trust and confidence.
TR
Streck-Fu
07-29-2015, 06:04
SWAT to inspect for code violations?
SWAT raids house to inspect for code issues and shoots family dog from 12 feet (in police report).
LINK (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/06/swat_dog_zorich_police_report.php)
Daily RFT has obtained documents that appear to be the police's own incident reports. They tell the cops' side of the story, which boils down to this: The family was considered "a nuisance" by neighbors, and during the raid, Kiya, the four-year-old pit bull, was "charging to attack" as they shot her.
Zorich insists in her suit that, on the contrary, Kiya didn't even have time to bark before being killed.
And interestingly, by the cops' own telling, the dog was 12 feet from the officers when they opened fire and killed her. They also acknowledge in the report that they'd entered the home without knocking, even though they were investigating code violations. Their justification: They believed the residents had "extensive violent history" and were known to be armed.
he report's author names four other officers who "were inside the residence when shots were fired and they relayed to me that they also believed the dog was charging to attack."
Sure the family was a nuisance but outside the raid, the only charges were for vehicle registration traffic citations.
Really, a tactical unit for code violations?
Team Sergeant
07-29-2015, 10:54
SWAT to inspect for code violations?
SWAT raids house to inspect for code issues and shoots family dog from 12 feet (in police report).
LINK (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/06/swat_dog_zorich_police_report.php)
Sure the family was a nuisance but outside the raid, the only charges were for vehicle registration traffic citations.
Really, a tactical unit for code violations?
This is what happens when you give "cowards" guns, a badge and unlimited authority. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Maybe instead of "tactical" shooting classes we need "Grow a Spine or Grow Some Balls" classes......
A "man" enters the same house and after upsetting the dog drops to a knee to call the dog cause he felt bad he upset him.
SWAT to inspect for code violations?
SWAT raids house to inspect for code issues and shoots family dog from 12 feet (in police report).
LINK (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2015/06/swat_dog_zorich_police_report.php)
Sure the family was a nuisance but outside the raid, the only charges were for vehicle registration traffic citations.
Really, a tactical unit for code violations?
Code Officials are 'Gods' who can bring their wrath in many ways.
blacksmoke
07-30-2015, 22:51
Just today I had another telling conversation with a cop. I was talking to a guy about the police shooting in Cincinnati. The cop mentions that the guy also has an open container in his car , info not seen in the news, as if that was another indicator he should have been shot for trying to flee...
CHICAGO (CN) - Police cannot claim immunity after sending a SWAT team to search an elderly mother's home when evidence suggested she had nothing to do with threats made against them, the Seventh Circuit ruled.
On June 21, 2012, the Evansville, Ind., police conducted a search of Louise Milan's home, one day after they found out that someone had been posting threats against police online using the home's IP address.
However, 68-year-old Milan's wireless Internet network was unprotected by any password, meaning that anyone could have made the threats via the network just by standing in the vicinity of the house.
Two doors down from Milan's home, police had recently spotted a man named Derrick Murray, who had a history of making threats against the police, and at least two officers believed he was the likely source of the threats, according to court documents.
"Prudence counseled delaying the search of a day or so to try to get a better understanding both of the Milan household and of Murray's potential responsibility for the threats," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner said, writing for the three-judge panel. "Prudence went by the board."
Instead, the police sent an 11-man SWAT team to the house, broke down the door, and threw two "flash bang" grenades through an open window. They then rushed into the house, searched it from top to bottom, and handcuffed Milan and her 18-year-old daughter.
A brief interrogation of the mother and daughter quickly convinced the police that they had nothing to do with the threats made via their internet network, and they were released back to their home with a burnt rug, and broken door. The city paid to replace both the rug and door.
"That the threats might have come from a person (or persons) inside the Milan home who might moreover be armed and dangerous was enough to make the police decide to have the house searched by the department's SWAT team forthwith, though, to repeat, the threatening messages could instead have emanated from outside the house because of the open network," Posner said. (Emphasis in original.)
The next day, the police confirmed that Murray was indeed responsible, and asked him politely to present himself at police headquarters.
"The police department's kid-gloves treatment of Murray is in startling contrast to their flash-bang assault on Mrs. Milan's home," Posner said.
Posner noted that Milan's daughter looked much younger than 18 on the video of the search.
"She is so small, frail, utterly harmless looking, and completely unresisting that the sight of her being led away in handcuffs is disturbing. All that the SWAT officer had to do was take her by the hand and lead her out of the house, which was rapidly filling with smoke from the flash bangs; there was no conceivable reason to handcuff her," the judge said.
The fact that the entire SWAT team was white, while Milan and her daughter are black, "cannot have helped race relations in Evansville," the opinion added.
Posner said that the court's decision in this case was not merely relying on the wisdom of hindsight.
"We cannot understand the failure of the police, before flash banging the house, to conduct a more extensive investigation of the actual suspects: Murray, living two doors away from the Milan home and thus with ready access to Mrs. Milan's open network. The police neglect of Murray is almost incomprehensible," Posner said.
The court noted that it has previously objected to the use of flash bang grenades unless there is a dangerous suspect, and police have checked to see if innocents are in the vicinity before using them. In a 2010 case, Estate of Escobedo v. Bender, it called the devices "bombs."
"The police in this case flunked the test just quoted. True, they'd brought a fire extinguisher with them - but, as if in tribute to Mack Sennett's Keystone Kops, they left it in their armored SWAT vehicle," Posner said.
Source (http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/03/swat-assault-on-home-ruled-unreasonable.htm)
The actions of SWAT teams and their predisposition to chunking flash bangs in houses makes is making it really hard to convince people that they are actually good guys.