Homeowner Shot by Officer after bad 911 call.

[makattak]

You said: "The only thing the modern police force is taught is that the only important thing is that they go home at the end of their shift.  What bodies lie in their wake isn't important." 
That claim is - at best - ignorant and wrong from start to finish, whatever your experience or lack thereof.  Yelling "adhom!" doesn't change that.  It was frankly generous of Scout to attribute the wrongness and ridiculousness of your claim to ignorance borne through lack of relevant experience.
So you are extrapolating your judgement from a tiny KY town's poor taste in livery?  A police chief who sees a cool logo without knowing the full comic backstory choosing to display a Punisher logo on a police car is all the proof you need that all cops want to emulate the Punisher and just want to murder people?  Oooookay.  Let's follow this brilliant analysis for a minute.


All spandex-wearing bicyclists want to murder people!

All firefighters want to murder people!

All AR-15 owners want to murder people!

All Spikes Tactical owners want to murder people!

All Marines want to murder people!

I could go on.

The Punisher logo has been used by tons of people for all kinds of causes.  It's on 1911 grips, Glock striker covers, t-shirts, rifle magazines, coffee mugs, stickers - all over the place.  It's associated with sports teams, regular Joe shooters, police, military, firefighters, working dogs, hunters - basically anything competitive, violent, or physical.   It's a cool looking, mildly edgy logo, and - this may come as a shock to you - not everyone who displays it sees their actual role in society as an unsanctioned executioner.

And, if any citizen wearing those clothes (or used that weapon) were involved in a shoot, just how would that information be received by the prosecuting attorney? (Because, whether the shoot was good or bad, the DA would be prosecuting because of that fact alone.)

While, on the other side of the law, the attorneys SUPPRESSED information that a police officer, involved in a VERY bad shoot, had "You're *expletive deleted*ed" on his personal AR that he shot the completely innocent murder victim with.

So, according to the prosecutors and judges, what a person is wearing, or how he decorates his gun is a very useful indicator of the person's intent... unless that person is a police officer, in which case, telling the jury that information is "totally prejudicial" and inadmissible. Funny that standard.

[mtnbkr]

this may come as a shock to you - not everyone who displays it sees their actual role in society as an unsanctioned executioner.

Any organization with legal authority to act against or use deadly force against others may want to rethink the public image they portray via logos, clothing choices, and actions.  Like it or not, these things matter.

If a private citizen wants to adopt symbolism that indicates possible violent tendencies and a disregard for the law, that is their business.  The rest of us are under no duty to obey their commands.

Chris

[cordex]

And, if any citizen wearing those clothes (or used that weapon) were involved in a shoot, just how would that information be received by the prosecuting attorney? (Because, whether the shoot was good or bad, the DA would be prosecuting because of that fact alone.)

If a citizen were wearing or bearing such a logo I'm sure the prosecutor would want to include it.  Whether they would prosecute on that fact alone depends on the prosecutor, but I'm guessing that is not a universal truth.  The defense would certainly do what they could to argue that it was not relevant to the shoot.

While, on the other side of the law, the attorneys SUPPRESSED information that a police officer, involved in a VERY bad shoot, had "You're *expletive deleted*ed" on his personal AR that he shot the completely innocent murder victim with.

Yep.  And if you were in a similar situation without a badge your attorney would try to do the same thing as his did.  Or do you contend that the prosecutor in that case didn't want to bring it up?  If so, that's the first I've heard of it.

So, according to the prosecutors and judges, what a person is wearing, or how he decorates his gun is a very useful indicator of the person's intent... unless that person is a police officer, in which case, telling the jury that information is "totally prejudicial" and inadmissible. Funny that standard.

So you are claiming that the reason the dust cover decoration was not included is because the shooter was a cop?  And that similar evidence is never suppressed in the case of a non-cop?

Any organization with legal authority to act against or use deadly force against others may want to rethink the public image they portray via logos, clothing choices, and actions.  Like it or not, these things matter.

I don't disagree at all.  As I said, it was poor taste.  And apparently quickly removed when the history of the comic character was brought to the attention of the chief.

If a private citizen wants to adopt symbolism that indicates possible violent tendencies and a disregard for the law, that is their business.  The rest of us are under no duty to obey their commands.

If we're going to apply guilt by association to police because there are bad cops or cops with bad attitudes or cops with logos that make us sad, I'm not sure why we think the same cannot be done to us.

Vigilante emblems on cop cars is a little more troubling then vigilante emblems on bike clothes.

Depends on intent, but by and large I agree.  But something in poor taste put on a couple cars in a tiny KY town out of ignorance does not a culture of murderers make.

There's also the very widespread 1* movement among LEO. 

K9 handlers have 2*.  But again, like the "go home at the end of my shift", I'm not sure how the mindset is so different than the mindset of people like you and I who take an active role in our own self-defense and have even prepared to some extent to take another person's life so that we might do so.

[Jamisjockey]

Well........That one is more accurate then the others.....


Vigilante emblems on cop cars is a little more troubling then vigilante emblems on bike clothes.  There's also the very widespread 1* movement among LEO. 

This.

[mtnbkr]

If we're going to apply guilt by association to police because there are bad cops or cops with bad attitudes or cops with logos that make us sad, I'm not sure why we think the same cannot be done to us.

The difference is the legal authority granted to the police officer.  If I see you strutting down the street decked out in your best Punisher wardrobe, I can point and laugh.  If you try to pull a "respect mah authoritah" stunt, I'll tell you to FOAD.  We do not have those abilities with the police, which is why it makes us sad when they choose to portray themselves as "bad asses" or "warriors" rather than public servants.

Chris

[cordex]

The difference is the legal authority granted to the police officer.  If I see you strutting down the street decked out in your best Punisher wardrobe, I can point and laugh.  If you try to pull a "respect mah authoritah" stunt, I'll tell you to FOAD.  We do not have those abilities with the police, which is why it makes us sad when they choose to portray themselves as "bad asses" or "warriors" rather than public servants.

You're still missing the point.  I'm not defending the use of the punisher logo by cops.  In this particular case based on what I could find about the Catlettsburg, KY department, I find it plausible that it was an honest mistake, but let's say that it was actually as evil as it might be perceived.  Jamis is using that instance as evidence to condemn all police as murderous psychopaths who don't care who they kill.

Have you never met a scumbag gun owner?  That's okay, I have.  Should you be judged by the jackasses with guns I've seen?  What about the VPC's list of "conceal carry killers"?  That's a lot of "evidence" that gun owners don't care about the bodies they leave behind just so they can get home at the end of the day.

Except that it isn't.

[dogmush]

K9 handlers have 2*.  But again, like the "go home at the end of my shift", I'm not sure how the mindset is so different than the mindset of people like you and I who take an active role in our own self-defense and have even prepared to some extent to take another person's life so that we might do so.

You and I¹ aren't taking public funds in pay to do a dangerous job, then acting like it's unreasonable for the public to want you to take risks. 

1 Well, actually I do, but I don't cry that my job is dangerous and I shouldn't be expected to do it.  I do have an MHI patch on my body armor, but no vampires have complained yet.

[mtnbkr]

You're still missing the point.  I'm not defending the use of the punisher logo by cops.  In this particular case based on what I could find about the Catlettsburg, KY department, I find it plausible that it was an honest mistake, but let's say that it was actually as evil as it might be perceived.  Jamis is using that instance as evidence to condemn all police as murderous psychopaths who don't care who they kill.

Have you never met a scumbag gun owner?  That's okay, I have.  Should you be judged by the jackasses with guns I've seen?  What about the VPC's list of "conceal carry killers"?  That's a lot of "evidence" that gun owners don't care about the bodies they leave behind just so they can get home at the end of the day.

Except that it isn't.

I'm not missing the point.  I'm running with that specific example because it's visible and well understood.

I don't care what other "gun owners" do because we're not part of the same legal organization and I am not responsible for or involved in the actions of other gun owners legally or morally.  The police are part of a unified legal organization with authority to act.  Therefore, if elements of that organization are thugs or portray themselves as such, and if the other members of that legal organization do not take steps to remove the bad actors from their ranks rather than unofficially invoking some code of brotherhood or blue wall of silence, then they should not be surprised when the entire lot is painted with the same brush.

I am not referring to honest mistakes such as the one at the Catlettsburg, KY department.  I'm talking about the ones who adopt and own a demeanor at odds with their mission to serve and protect.  The police may not be boy scouts, but they need to fake it until they make it and they need to stop sheltering the dirtbags within their ranks (those legally defined and authorized to act ranks).

Put another way, if 1% of WalMart cashiers were thugs who assaulted innocent shoppers, would you be content that Walmart was silent on the matter or would you demand Walmart clean house and take ownership of its mess?  That's what we aren't seeing with regards to police misconduct.

Chris

[cordex]

The police are part of a unified legal organization with authority to act. 

Unified?  Explain.

Therefore, if elements of that organization are thugs or portray themselves as such, and if the other members of that legal organization do not take steps to remove the bad actors from their ranks rather than unofficially invoking some code of brotherhood or blue wall of silence, then they should not be surprised when the entire lot is painted with the same brush.

To the extent and where and when that happens, I am in total agreement.

I am not referring to honest mistakes such as the one at the Catlettsburg, KY department.  I'm talking about the ones who adopt and own a demeanor at odds with their mission to serve and protect.  The police may not be boy scouts, but they need to fake it until they make it and they need to stop sheltering the dirtbags within their ranks (those legally defined and authorized to act ranks).

To the extent and where and when that happens, I am in total agreement.

Put another way, if 1% of WalMart cashiers were thugs who assaulted innocent shoppers, would you be content that Walmart was silent on the matter or would you demand Walmart clean house and take ownership of its mess?  That's what we aren't seeing with regards to police misconduct.

What are you actually seeing with regards to police misconduct?  I posit that we almost exclusively see the worst possible outliers and are rarely if ever privy to the formal and informal disciplinary proceedings within a department.

[KD5NRH]

Any organization with legal authority to act against or use deadly force against others may want to rethink the public image they portray via logos, clothing choices, and actions.  Like it or not, these things matter.

This, and nearly all of them have stated that themselves at some point as part of their dress code.  Or does anyone really think a cop with a rebel flag tattooed on his arm would fly with the department brass?  

What are you actually seeing with regards to police misconduct?  I posit that we almost exclusively see the worst possible outliers and are rarely if ever privy to the formal and informal disciplinary proceedings within a department.

It's certain that there's a lot more bad behavior we don't find out about.  Just look at the Mesa shooting; Brailsford got canned for something unrelated that didn't make the news at all until the shooting.

The simple fact of the matter is that if going home at the end of the day really is more important to you than playing Billy Badass with a city-issued badge and gun, there are lots of other jobs available.

[cordex]

You and I¹ aren't taking public funds in pay to do a dangerous job, then acting like it's unreasonable for the public to want you to take risks. 

1 Well, actually I do, but I don't cry that my job is dangerous and I shouldn't be expected to do it.  I do have an MHI patch on my body armor, but no vampires have complained yet.

I don't think police (at least the ones I spend time around) behave that it is unreasonable for the public to want them to take risks.  I'm sure there are some out there who do, but that is not the culture to which I have been personally exposed.

[dogmush]

I don't think police (at least the ones I spend time around) behave that it is unreasonable for the public to want them to take risks.  I'm sure there are some out there who do, but that is not the culture to which I have been personally exposed.

I have been exposed to different cultures depending on the department's I'm working with.  It probably even changes depending on which unit in a particular department.  That said, I'll be clear:

If a suspect does something that indicates they might be a threat, I expect police officers to refrain from using deadly force until there is a threat.  I understand that that means some officers will get shot/injured because of the calculus of action/reaction times.  I expect them to do so because: 1. We pay them to take that risk, 2. They have back-up, weapons, and armor, and are more likely to survive then the civilian, and 3. One of the drawbacks of the frankly awesome power we give LEO's in our society is that they get to risk other peoples lives without the other peoples consent.  They should be obligated to take the heavier risk in those situations.

I know that belief puts me in the minority in many circles, but there it is.  I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".  That culture should be unacceptable to us in a free society.  You[they] only get so many "I thought that unarmed person had a gun/ was attacking/ could be a danger, so I killed them" before that trigger happy nervousness wears thin.  We are past that point.

I have mentioned in the past that while Soldiers in war maintain the right to self defense, the ROE for shooting civilians perceived as a threat were more restrictive in Iraq circa 2012-2013 then they are in many US cities today.  Soldiers in WAR manage to hold fire until actual threats are seen more then civilian police officers.  Consider that carefully.

[Jamisjockey]

I have nothing to add
This says it all.

I have been exposed to different cultures depending on the department's I'm working with.  It probably even changes depending on which unit in a particular department.  That said, I'll be clear:

If a suspect does something that indicates they might be a threat, I expect police officers to refrain from using deadly force until there is a threat.  I understand that that means some officers will get shot/injured because of the calculus of action/reaction times.  I expect them to do so because: 1. We pay them to take that risk, 2. They have back-up, weapons, and armor, and are more likely to survive then the civilian, and 3. One of the drawbacks of the frankly awesome power we give LEO's in our society is that they get to risk other peoples lives without the other peoples consent.  They should be obligated to take the heavier risk in those situations.

I know that belief puts me in the minority in many circles, but there it is.  I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".  That culture should be unacceptable to us in a free society.  You[they] only get so many "I thought that unarmed person had a gun/ was attacking/ could be a danger, so I killed them" before that trigger happy nervousness wears thin.  We are past that point.

I have mentioned in the past that while Soldiers in war maintain the right to self defense, the ROE for shooting civilians perceived as a threat were more restrictive in Iraq circa 2012-2013 then they are in many US cities today.  Soldiers in WAR manage to hold fire until actual threats are seen more then civilian police officers.  Consider that carefully.

[mtnbkr]

Unified?  Explain.

Poor choice of words.  I meant insofar that "Police" is a fairly standard function with consistent rules, tools, and expectations.  Differences exist, but aside from different laws in a given area, you can expect police to have some consistency in the mission per national standards.

What are you actually seeing with regards to police misconduct?  I posit that we almost exclusively see the worst possible outliers and are rarely if ever privy to the formal and informal disciplinary proceedings within a department.

We might only see the worst outliers, but what about the lesser crimes that aren't exposed to a larger audience.  Also, while we aren't necessarily privy to disciplinary proceedings, how often do we hear about a cop who committed some offense (whether legal or moral) and is exonerated due to some excuse (fog of battle, concern for his and his fellow officers' safety, what have you).  Maybe part of the solution is to not deal with these issues quietly and privately.  Maybe the public should be made aware when the bad seeds are dealt with so we have confidence that our best interests are being supported.  There's an ongoing assumption that bad behavior is not punished often.  Why not prove "conventional wisdom" wrong and let the public know they've got our backs.  Or, "we can retreat behind the blue wall because the public are uninformed and ignorant and don't get our struggle". 

Chris

[KD5NRH]

There's an ongoing assumption that bad behavior is not punished often.  Why not prove "conventional wisdom" wrong and let the public know they've got our backs.  Or, "we can retreat behind the blue wall because the public are uninformed and ignorant and don't get our struggle".

This.  And work hard at breaking the "blue wall" down; all too often they claim they've kept quiet about things because "that's guy's gonna have my back at some point."  People who abuse a position like that are the reason I'd want to have someone watching my back, not the ones I'd want doing it.

[Fitz]

I have been exposed to different cultures depending on the department's I'm working with.  It probably even changes depending on which unit in a particular department.  That said, I'll be clear:

If a suspect does something that indicates they might be a threat, I expect police officers to refrain from using deadly force until there is a threat.  I understand that that means some officers will get shot/injured because of the calculus of action/reaction times.  I expect them to do so because: 1. We pay them to take that risk, 2. They have back-up, weapons, and armor, and are more likely to survive then the civilian, and 3. One of the drawbacks of the frankly awesome power we give LEO's in our society is that they get to risk other peoples lives without the other peoples consent.  They should be obligated to take the heavier risk in those situations.

I know that belief puts me in the minority in many circles, but there it is.  I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".  That culture should be unacceptable to us in a free society.  You[they] only get so many "I thought that unarmed person had a gun/ was attacking/ could be a danger, so I killed them" before that trigger happy nervousness wears thin.  We are past that point.

I have mentioned in the past that while Soldiers in war maintain the right to self defense, the ROE for shooting civilians perceived as a threat were more restrictive in Iraq circa 2012-2013 then they are in many US cities today.  Soldiers in WAR manage to hold fire until actual threats are seen more then civilian police officers.  Consider that carefully.

Ding ding ding

[cordex]

If a suspect does something that indicates they might be a threat, I expect police officers to refrain from using deadly force until there is a threat.

I think it has to be a little more situation-dependent than that, but in some situations I agree.

I understand that that means some officers will get shot/injured because of the calculus of action/reaction times.  I expect them to do so because: 1. We pay them to take that risk, 2. They have back-up, weapons, and armor, and are more likely to survive then the civilian, and 3. One of the drawbacks of the frankly awesome power we give LEO's in our society is that they get to risk other peoples lives without the other peoples consent.  They should be obligated to take the heavier risk in those situations.

Hmmm ...

I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".

 
I don't get that feeling, but I admit my sample size is limited.

I have mentioned in the past that while Soldiers in war maintain the right to self defense, the ROE for shooting civilians perceived as a threat were more restrictive in Iraq circa 2012-2013 then they are in many US cities today.  Soldiers in WAR manage to hold fire until actual threats are seen more then civilian police officers.  Consider that carefully.

You're far better informed on this subject than I am, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm remembering previous discussion and reporting on the ROE of that era there was not a lot of support from troops of it.  In fact, as I recall there were many who felt that - despite the fact that they were being paid to do that dangerous job, and despite the fact that they have backup, weapons, wear body armor, and despite the fact that they have the power to risk other people's lives without their consent, the ROE they had to operate under was far too restrictive.

[Fitz]

I think it has to be a little more situation-dependent than that, but in some situations I agree.
Hmmm ...
 
I don't get that feeling, but I admit my sample size is limited.
You're far better informed on this subject than I am, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm remembering previous discussion and reporting on the ROE of that era there was not a lot of support from troops of it.  In fact, as I recall there were many who felt that - despite the fact that they were being paid to do that dangerous job, and despite the fact that they have backup, weapons, wear body armor, and despite the fact that they have the power to risk other people's lives without their consent, the ROE they had to operate under was far too restrictive.

Restrictive as hell ROE isn’t appropriate for war

It’s absolutely appropriate for civilian law enforcement

[Jamisjockey]

We might only see the worst outliers, but what about the lesser crimes that aren't exposed to a larger audience. 

Chris

I've had several cops, who were likely as far as I know otherwise not bad cops or criminals, tell me flat out if they want someone to go to jail, they can come up with a charge and make it happen.  That says everything right there.

[Hawkmoon]

I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".

I don't get that feeling, but I admit my sample size is limited.

You need more exposure to "cop" culture. And it very much is NOT "uniform." Cops in one town may be the nicest, most civilized peace officers you could ever hope to meet, and the cops in the next town could all be jackbooted thugs. Around here, not even the State Police are "unified." Depending on which troop a trooper works out of, his (or her) attitude can be diametrically different. My experience has been that the younger ones are the worst, but then I remembered the recent case of the emergency room nurse who was arrested for not allowing a cop (an older cop) to take a blood sample from an unconscious patient because the patient hadn't given permission.

It was in the news. The cop went all "Respect mah aw-thaw-rih-tay" and cuffed her and stuffed her. It was caught on video. The department ultimately acknowledged that the nurse was right, the officer was wrong -- and they fired him. But the poor nurse had a bad night because of an arrogant cop who expected everyone to play by his rules. Here's the video -- it's long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yia7qs01z1M

There are probably shorter versions available, but it's important to understand that (a) she was doing her job; (b) she was following the protocol that had been agreed to between the hospital and the police department; and (c) the cop just wanted to do what he wanted to do, and he didn't think rules or laws applied to him.

There are too many out there like him. Look up some of the Internet forums that are by and for police officers, and just lurk. You'll see more of the "thin blue line" and "The only thing that matters is I go home at the end of my shift" than you'd ever want to.

[MechAg94]

I have been exposed to different cultures depending on the department's I'm working with.  It probably even changes depending on which unit in a particular department.  That said, I'll be clear:

If a suspect does something that indicates they might be a threat, I expect police officers to refrain from using deadly force until there is a threat. I understand that that means some officers will get shot/injured because of the calculus of action/reaction times.  I expect them to do so because: 1. We pay them to take that risk, 2. They have back-up, weapons, and armor, and are more likely to survive then the civilian, and 3. One of the drawbacks of the frankly awesome power we give LEO's in our society is that they get to risk other peoples lives without the other peoples consent.  They should be obligated to take the heavier risk in those situations.

I know that belief puts me in the minority in many circles, but there it is.  I also very much get the feeling that the prevailing LEO culture is "If something could have been a threat, I'm justified in treating it as such, even up to killing a non-threat civilian".  That culture should be unacceptable to us in a free society.  You[they] only get so many "I thought that unarmed person had a gun/ was attacking/ could be a danger, so I killed them" before that trigger happy nervousness wears thin.  We are past that point.

I have mentioned in the past that while Soldiers in war maintain the right to self defense, the ROE for shooting civilians perceived as a threat were more restrictive in Iraq circa 2012-2013 then they are in many US cities today.  Soldiers in WAR manage to hold fire until actual threats are seen more then civilian police officers.  Consider that carefully.

Well said.  The underlined is a big part of what I have been trying say (perhaps poorly) regarding some of these incidents.  

In this case in Georgia, the officer did actually get a weapon pointed at him, but his own actions caused the threat to appear (which should have been obvious).  That is leaving aside whether he was illegally trespassing at the time.  It appears withdrawal wasn't even an option until after he fired.