Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MechAg94 on January 06, 2018, 05:05:53 PM
-
This one seems a bit odd to me. I am seeing conflicting information. I saw the first link and didn't have a clear picture. The other two links draw a bit different picture of what happened. It also sounds like they are still digging up evidence on the 911 caller.
http://newschannel9.com/news/local/walker-county-man-killed-by-deputy-remembered-as-perfect-golden
The GBI says that one man is dead after a shooting at 147 Meadowview Drive.
Monday morning, they identified the man as 65-year-old Mark Steven Parkinson.
The GBI says they went to the home on Meadowview Drive for a welfare check after a 911 call was made.
They say, in the call, information was provided that a female at the residence was threatening to kill herself and her children. Once on scene, Deputy John Chandler observed Parkinson in the house with a weapon.
The GBI says deputies announced several times that they were from the Walker County Sheriff’s Office.
The GBI says Parkinson pointed the weapon at Deputy Chandler, at which point Deputy Chandler fired shots at Parkinson, killing him.
No officers were injured during this incident. Parkinson will be transported to the GBI Crime Lab for an autopsy.
http://newschannel9.com/news/local/nc9-exclusive-widow-of-man-killed-by-walker-county-deputy-shares-story-of-what-happened
http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/catoosa_walker_news/attorney-provides-more-details-on-fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in/article_7a8fcca0-f167-11e7-86c5-9f143a4fedb9.html
This quote is from the last link. It draws a bit different picture of events then the first link. Multiple witnesses nearby inside that had no idea LEO's were outside.
Stagg said that, at the time of the incident, five people were inside the house: Mark Parkinson, his wife Diana, Amy and her two children, a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old. Amy and her children were staying with her parents during the divorce proceedings, he said.
Stagg said they were asleep when Parkinson heard their three dogs barking from inside the residence. Parkinson retrieved his firearm for protection, Stagg said. Parkinson and his wife Diana then went into the kitchen area and heard someone banging on the kitchen window, Stagg said.
Within seconds, three shots were fired, with one striking Parkinson's jugular vein (throat area), causing him to bleed to death, the lawyer said.
Diana called for Amy to come downstairs and call 911, he said. Amy, a registered nurse, began to administer aid to her father by applying pressure to his neck, Stagg said.
Stagg said the family waited 3-5 minutes until paramedics and law enforcement arrived, believing that an unknown assailant had shot and killed Parkinson through the kitchen window. Stagg said no one in the family heard the knocking on the door or the three deputies announcing their arrival.
Stagg said Parkinson and Diana did not see law enforcement outside the residence and, to their knowledge, an unknown someone was simply banging on their kitchen window at 3 a.m.
Based on this, do y'all think this shoot is justified? It appears to be different circumstances than the other ones.
IMO, it goes without saying the 911 caller needs to be thrown under the jail assuming nothing comes up to exonerate that person.
-
Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window. From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.
-
Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window. From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.
Funny how no one heard them announce, though, and the family calling 911 immediately pretty well backs that up. Though really, anyone can yell anything they want; at a minimum they should have had a car with its overheads on.
I'm sure any dash cam footage that might exist will conveniently lack audio.
As for digging up evidence on the caller, how hard is that? She claims the daughter was texting her, daughter claims she wasn't. Given that, (which should be on the 911 recording) how hard is it to get a warrant to look at her phone? If she was telling the truth, why wouldn't she just show them that message and prove her case? If she so much as stretched the truth in the slightest, she needs to be facing serious prison time.
IMO, we need some heavy duty SWATting laws, to the point that even if nobody gets killed or seriously injured, the caller will regret it for a long time. If someone does get hurt or killed, it needs to be an enhanced version of what the caller would have gotten had they done it themselves. As it stands, it almost doesn't make sense to hire a hit man anymore when you can have the local PD do it for free, and face a lot less legal risk.
-
Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window. From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.
On your last, at what point do you say the officer doesn't have a right to be there? If they didn't have a good enough reason to go in the house immediately, why didn't they knock on the door? They were essentially conducting a search of the property based on a 911 report. If the house is quiet when they get there, what justifies that?
I would really like to see more from the police side, but I doubt that will come out before a trial. With what is given so far, I can't see how the shot is justified. I guess I will see.
-
MRAPs, full auto M4's, camo, dustcovers that say "you're *expletive deleted*ed" and punisher logos on patches. That's how this *expletive deleted*it happens. The police see themselves as an occupying army.
-
This whole "knock and announce" thing is a joke. It obviously doesn't account for people who are hard of hearing, or even deaf. It doesn't account for people who may be watching television. It doesn't account for the fact that people may be upstairs, asleep.
I don't know what current practice is, but my town's police department used to have a comparatively civilized approach. There used to be a family half a mile down the road that shared my last name. They were losers and dopers, so I'm happy to say they weren't related -- but they had on more than one occasion allowed creditors to think that my telephone number was their telephone. Apparently they also managed to con the police department the same way.
One evening I was tickling the keys on my keyboard when the telephone rang. I was still answering the phone in those days (now I let the answering machine screen all calls), so I picked up. "This is the police department. Officers are in your driveway and they need to talk to you, so control your dogs."
This was news to me, since I didn't own a dog. And a quick look out the window confirmed that there were no police cars in the driveway. So I then actually had to argue with the idiot dispatcher to convince him that he had called the wrong [Doe] family. But ... at least they didn't just shoot the dogs "out of an abundance of caution."
In the case under discussion, apparently the cop outside shot a homeowner for nothing more than legally holding a firearm inside his own "castle." Not good.
-
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions
Just a few passages showing a remarkable parallel...
-
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It seems to me that the word "unreasonable" means something different nowadays.
Same with "probable cause."
And "supported by oath and affirmation" means by someone reporting something someone else's drug-addled uncle reportedly said, or by an anonymous phone call.
All this, signed off on by compliant judges who rubber-stamp search warrant requests over the phone.*
"And you trust this informant?"
"Sure, Judge, we've used him a dozen times before. : rolleyes :
"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "any stuff, anybody, any place."
At least it seems that way sometimes.
Oh, I know, bad busts don't happen all the time, but I think the list of "usurpations" of the fundamental civil right spelled out in the Fourth Amendment seems to be getting too long, and "improved reporting" doesn't cut it as an explanation.
Terry
* Excepting, of course, any judges who happen to be on this board.
-
"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "any stuff, anybody, any place."
Yeah, I was watching an episode of one of the cop shows, I think it was Southern Justice, where they went to an address on an arrest warrant, and when the homeowner said the person named hadn't been there in months and invited them in to check, they started checking the refrigerator, freezer, kitchen drawers, etc. Basically everywhere a 5'8" 175lb person (based on the description they had) couldn't possibly fit. Another one, similar deal, they claimed that because a lidded coffee can was in plain view on a kitchen shelf, they were ok to open it and find the guy's weed stash inside.
-
Yeah, that may be an extension of a question I had from the other thread. What sort of authority should police have to charge in on someone's property without seeing the probable cause with their own eyes? IMO, is something is going on that warrants that sort of action, they will see it/hear it when they arrive outside. If the house is quiet and everyone is asleep, I don't think a 911 call justifies entry or search by itself.
-
I think maybe they should bring along the judge who signed off on the warrant and have him do the door-knocking and point entry.
>:D
Just kidding. Just kidding. Ha-ha-ha, me laugh.
I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.
-
This is a bad shoot. In this instance, a call back to the house from the PD would have been the thing to do. It also sounds like no inside the house heard anything, until the dogs started barking. Now, if dogS (meaning more that one) are inside barking their fool heads off, chances are you won't hear anything from the outside.
This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.
-
This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.
There should be no difference regarding the due diligence of the cops. They have no idea, apparently, whether a call is a spoof or not. Therefore the procedure should be the same- and not based solely on how the caller described the situation.
-
This is a bad shoot. In this instance, a call back to the house from the PD would have been the thing to do. It also sounds like no inside the house heard anything, until the dogs started barking. Now, if dogS (meaning more that one) are inside barking their fool heads off, chances are you won't hear anything from the outside.
This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.
No matter. 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.
-
Does anyone believe a cop will be punished for this? ;/
-
Does anyone believe a cop will be punished for this? ;/
I don't know how it normally works in Georgia. At least is appears a separate department is investigating. Judging by what we usually see, not likely. However, this one is hard to defend unless the police have evidence disputing the family's description of events.
-
No matter. 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.
So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??
There should be no difference regarding the due diligence of the cops. They have no idea, apparently, whether a call is a spoof or not. Therefore the procedure should be the same- and not based solely on how the caller described the situation.
The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic. The ways you approach those two situations are different. Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ?? Is that what you REALLY want ??
-
So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??
More likely based on the number of comments that say exactly that on police forums.
The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic. The ways you approach those two situations are different. Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ?? Is that what you REALLY want ??
But they basically did go in with SWAT -- or nearly so. They didn't send one or two officers to knock on the door like civilized people -- they set up a perimeter, with guns drawn and aimed, and then started with the shouted commands, [confusing] bright lights, and then they act all shocked and surprised when they got a predictable result.
-
That's why this is bad shoot. ;) ;) ;)
-
The domestic was (IMHO) a bad shoot because the cop wasn't at the front door, ringing the bell or knocking, and the cop didn't have dispatch try to call the house to tell the occupants to open the door and let the nice officers in. Instead, he was skulking around the outside of the house like a robber or home invader. The homeowner was in his "castle," where he has every right to be armed and prepared to defend himself. ESPECIALLY when there's an unknown person or persons skulking around outside.
-
So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??
The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic. The ways you approach those two situations are different. Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ?? Is that what you REALLY want ??
Great way to adhom the discussion.
Getting home at the end of the shift is the mantra for police far and wide around this country. Proof is in the pudding of how hostile they are in general to the public. It's all over their literature, their sayings, and their forums. They no longer view themselves as peace officers, but as an occupying army in hostile territory.
-
Great way to adhom the discussion.
Just to be clear, you take a former military cop's questioning the basis of your wild, emotional claim that cops don't care about killing people as an ad hominem attack? That about right?
Getting home at the end of the shift is the mantra for police far and wide around this country.
O. M. G. Those jerks don't want to die? They actually want to go home alive and get in bed with their wives and see their kids grow up? Can you even imagine? What nerve! I'm certainly glad no non-cop has ever wanted to survive. And we - as non-cop gunowners - would never, ever, ever repeat phrases like "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" to justify what we do for our own survival.
-
Just to be clear, you take a former military cop's questioning the basis of your wild, emotional claim that cops don't care about killing people as an ad hominem attack? That about right?
No, I took the assertion that because I don't have leo experience that my opinion on police mindset is invalid as an adhom.
I'll leave this here.
(https://fsmedia.imgix.net/23/ab/45/be/ec80/4069/8732/0f599861676f/kentucky-police-vehicles-with-punisher-logos-on-the-hoods.jpeg)
Yes, those are thin blue line punisher skulls on official police vehicles.
-
No, I took the assertion that because I don't have leo experience that my opinion on police mindset is invalid as an adhom.
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.
I'll leave this here.Yes, those are thin blue line punisher skulls on official police vehicles.
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.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fi%2F281835553035-0-1%2Fs-l1000.jpg&hash=4680eadef7e0a597ecf2a8c183699b48b360c170)
All spandex-wearing bicyclists want to murder people!
(https://customstickershop.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Punisher-firefighter-3.jpg)
All firefighters want to murder people!
(https://www.ar15goa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Punisher_Gray_Black.jpg)
All AR-15 owners want to murder people!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.armslist.com%2Fsites%2Farmslist%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2013%2F06%2F27%2F1816244_01_new_spikes_punisher_ar15_lower_640.jpg&hash=d8e0872eb50deac8436628d29b60e909945b4298)
All Spikes Tactical owners want to murder people!
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/awraq.tuqes/v/vspfiles/photos/punisher-american-marines-2.jpg)
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.
-
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/awraq.tuqes/v/vspfiles/photos/punisher-american-marines-2.jpg)
All Marines want to murder people!
Well........That one is more accurate then the others..... >:D
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.
-
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.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fi%2F281835553035-0-1%2Fs-l1000.jpg&hash=4680eadef7e0a597ecf2a8c183699b48b360c170)
All spandex-wearing bicyclists want to murder people!
(https://customstickershop.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Punisher-firefighter-3.jpg)
All firefighters want to murder people!
(https://www.ar15goa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Punisher_Gray_Black.jpg)
All AR-15 owners want to murder people!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.armslist.com%2Fsites%2Farmslist%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2013%2F06%2F27%2F1816244_01_new_spikes_punisher_ar15_lower_640.jpg&hash=d8e0872eb50deac8436628d29b60e909945b4298)
All Spikes Tactical owners want to murder people!
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/awraq.tuqes/v/vspfiles/photos/punisher-american-marines-2.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Well........That one is more accurate then the others..... >:D
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.