Rise of the Warrior Cop

[Tree Potato]

Originally Posted by RCummings

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]

Originally Posted by PSM

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.

[MtnGoat]

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.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

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 .

[Five-O]

...

[therunningwolf]

Originally Posted by Tree Potato

"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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

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

[Richard]

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.

Richard

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

^^^^^ 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

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]

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. ???

[Box]

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

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

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. ???

I noticed big lag during word entry, must have been the NSA messing with time stamps

[The Reaper]

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

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



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.