Anti government sentiment fuels fears of police killings

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by mojaveman

"There's a deep concern that there has been a measureable increase of violence against police officers, especially with firearms," said Rich Roberts, spokesman for the International Union of Police Associates. The anti-police movement "seems to feed off each other online," he said.

Well....shit like this does not help the public perception....LINK

Green Bay -

Green Bay Police have cleared Officer Derek Wicklund in an internal investigation into his use of force in an arrest in April.

Youtube video of incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhueN-vL-M

Full report (go to page 5 for description of action): LINK

Vertically stuns.....decentralizes.....directs his right hand ....

[wpd654]

Use of force rarely looks good on film. The camera lenses gives a much wider perspective of the incident than the officer sees. In this video the suspect is obviously non-compliant and the report articulates probable cause that he was obstructing another officer from taking someone into custody.

The suspect and officer appeared fairly evenly matched in size and strength. Even when the suspect was on his back he was not effectively in custody. The officer did a great job of delivering strikes to the suspect causing him to turn away so he could be maneuvered onto his stomach. Once he was secured the strikes stopped and the applicating of force was over. That is as clean as it gets with a combative person at bar close. If my wife called the police for an intruder breaking into my house I would want that officer to respond.

Thanks for this thread. I showed the West Memphis video at roll call yesterday.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by wpd654

Use of force rarely looks good on film. The camera lenses gives a much wider perspective of the incident than the officer sees. In this video the suspect is obviously non-compliant and the report articulates probable cause that he was obstructing another officer from taking someone into custody.

The suspect and officer appeared fairly evenly matched in size and strength. Even when the suspect was on his back he was not effectively in custody. The officer did a great job of delivering strikes to the suspect causing him to turn away so he could be maneuvered onto his stomach. Once he was secured the strikes stopped and the applicating of force was over. That is as clean as it gets with a combative person at bar close. If my wife called the police for an intruder breaking into my house I would want that officer to respond.

Thanks for this thread. I showed the West Memphis video at roll call yesterday.

How about this one, then: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/us/cal...otape-beating/

Going to fists seems to make it personal.

Pat

[wpd654]

In this example it is harder to determine appropriateness. The video reports the trooper received a call about this women on the freeway. The reason she was out there is unknown and the possibilities are many and the officer was alone at the time. The supervisor is right in that once the facts are known a determination can be made. When police agencies decline to give opinions about appropriateness of a police action, it's more about letting the government systems in place do their jobs than any ill will or wall of silence. That is my opinion and experience.

On a side note, I feel it will be the norm for officers to wear body-cams within the next five years or so. The perspective of the officer will be clearer as well as the intent of suspects.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by wpd654

In this example it is harder to determine appropriateness. The video reports the trooper received a call about this women on the freeway. The reason she was out there is unknown and the possibilities are many and the officer was alone at the time. The supervisor is right in that once the facts are known a determination can be made. When police agencies decline to give opinions about appropriateness of a police action, it's more about letting the government systems in place do their jobs than any ill will or wall of silence. That is my opinion and experience.

On a side note, I feel it will be the norm for officers to wear body-cams within the next five years or so. The perspective of the officer will be clearer as well as the intent of suspects.

Have you ever heard of an LEO being convicted in criminal court of assault, ADW, or homicide relating to an on-duty incident?

Are officers ever held personally financially responsible for their actions, or are the taxpayers always on the hook for the incidents?

TR

[wpd654]

I am not an attorney so this my opinion on the question. Criminal prosecution of police officers related to use of force cases are rare. If an officer is prosecuted in criminal court it usually stems from egregious conduct like extortion or other crimes where the criminal intent can be proved by prosecutors. The proverbial bad apple if you will.

The majority of excessive use of force cases take the civil path of the 4th Amendment principles of unreasonable search and seizure. The suspect or suspect's family allege that the force applied was an unreasonable seizure, violating their constitutional rights. When these suits are filled, they most always include the agency and the individual officers involved. In essence they are bringing civil action against the government and then the officer personally.

Who foots the bill is dependent on the circumstances. Most agencies have legal council as part of operating expenses. They pay a fixed amount that gives them council in the event a suit is filed. Where it gets dicey is they can choose to officially support the officers actions or not. If they support them, their defense is covered under the agencies plan. If the officer is not supported, the cost of their defense is their responsibility. Most police unions collect dues and use that money to contract with a law firm for legal council for their members.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by wpd654

I am not an attorney so this my opinion on the question. Criminal prosecution of police officers related to use of force cases are rare......

How about lying...

Durham cops lied about 911 calls

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/dur...nt?oid=4201004

"...When Beck took the witness stand, he admitted to fabricating the 911 story in order to enter the house. Beck testified that his true intent was to serve a warrant, though he never produced the warrant in the courtroom.

Beck further testified that the 911 ruse was permitted under a department policy in cases where domestic violence is alleged, recalled Morgan Canady, the defendant's lawyer...."

[wpd654]

When cops lie it's a deal breaker with the agency and the courts. Most cases of false reporting are discovered by the agency. Once the allegation is substantiated the officer can no longer be viewed as a credible witness in court. Agencies are required to notify prosecutors when this happens. The officer is then either let go or resigns.

Whether the officer is charged with a crime based on the lie is up to the prosecuting authority. The ex-officer is open to civil liability as well.

Justin Volpe. NYPD got 30 years, and cost NYC 8.75 million payout to Abner Louima.

[Lan]

I believe the federal government is behind some of the anti local police sentiment. What better way to cause a rift between the two forces capable of stopping government overreach, than to coerce people into believing local police are the problem by making bizarre statements on websites they know anti big government advocates communicate.

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Good point. Most LE are good ell meaning officers. The media highlights the shit heads and makes all officers look bad. Are there some scum bags with a badge? Yea there are just like any group had its screw ups. Part of the strategy of UW and staring an insurgency is driving wedges between groups of people along racial, ethnic, religions or finical lines etc. Set them against each other then manipulate them to do what you want.

As long as there's a blue wall(code) of silence, LEOs will be be viewed in a suspect way by the public in general.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by WCH

As long as there's a blue wall(code) of silence, LEOs will be be viewed in a suspect way by the public in general.

I guess we are finally in agreement here.

LEOs wrongfully assault and kill a lot more Americans every year than we would believe.

The sad fact is that LEOs have virtual immunity from their misconduct. An officer who is actually fired, which seems to be about the most serious repercussion actually imposed, would have almost certainly been incarcerated had he taken those same actions as a regular citizen.

Until LEOs see that testifying against a bad officer is in their own best interest, I suspect that we will continue to see a legacy of LEOs not being held civilly or criminally accountable for their actions, and the taxpayer footing the bill for their legal representation and massive civil settlements.

If a cop does something illegal, he should be held to the same standards as the public. If that means incarceration, so be it.

The secondary effect is the destruction of trust between the public and the LEO community. Sometimes, the sheepdogs are actually wolves pretending to be dogs.

I was involved in the investigation of an incident where a local deputy shot two Robin Sage students, killing one. The blue wall came up, the video recording mysteriously stopped prior to the shooting, the physical evidence disproving the deputy's claims were ignored, the witnesses were intimidated, officers and citizens who knew him to be a bad egg were silenced, and he got away with murder. Case closed. The county eventually paid a large settlement to hush this up and make it go away. Thank you John Q. Taxpayer. Does anyone think they, as members of the public would have gotten away with this?

This lack of accountability has, along with the militarization of Law Enforcement, led to an erosion of trust and confidence between the public and local, state, and Federal LE.

TR

[The Reaper]

Nothing personal, but since you refer to the public as civilians, do most officers see themselves as some sort of military personnel?

TR

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

First of all your statement is offensive to me. You are stating I would cover up for another officer that commits a crime etc. That is bullshit. There NOTHING worse than a dirty cop. Now look at it through a cops eyes.
.

Sorry, have to agree with WCH on this one. Nothing offensive about what he wrote. He's right. That code of silence does hurt the public's trust in LE. He didn't say you were, personally, responsible.

Civilian:
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.