Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired


Dan T.
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, China said:

 

In the first six months of health care professionals replacing police officers, no one they encountered was arrested

 

DPD Chief Pazen, who is fond of the STAR program, says it frees up officers to do their jobs: fight crime.

 Sorta meaningless since they got to cherry pick the calls they responded too. Police respond to a lot of calls where they make no arrests as well. 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago many police departments complained about "having to wear to many hats". Once the defunding talk started some quickly changed their tune. Basically unions now say hey don't take our money. Fact is we ask way to much of officers. They're not EMTs, firefighters, counselors, mental health professionals, ect.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/boston.cbslocal.com/2020/06/12/boston-police-commissioner-william-gross-budget-overtime-walsh/amp/

 

Quote

“Quite frankly, what I’ve heard in the community is we wear too many hats anyway. A child doesn’t want to go to school? You call the Boston Police. A child’s on the bus being unruly? You call the Boston Police. There’s an emotionally disturbed person in a home? You call the Boston Police,” Gross said at Friday’s news conference. “How many hats do you want us to wear? So, I think that responsibility should be spread out.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 Sorta meaningless since they got to cherry pick the calls they responded too. Police respond to a lot of calls where they make no arrests as well. 

 

The Denver Police Chief being a fan and supporting it seems meaningful to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think it is funny that people legitimately think the world would be better without police. 

 

I think it predictable that someone would simply invent an argument that not one person in here has made, and pretend people said it anyway.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I think it predictable that someone would simply invent an argument that not one person in here has made, and pretend people said it anyway.  


I am not talking about people here, I was responding to a tweet above. 
 

In some cases it probably makes sense to send mental health professionals instead of police. My main thought was about the comment regarding getting police out of traffic stops....

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

My main thought was about the comment regarding getting police out of traffic stops....

Police can do their job via investigations. They already do. The question really is whether or not it’s a net positive to have police pulling cars over for speeding, not signaling, rolling through a stop sign - and having that turn into a foot chase because dude had a sack of weed in his pocket. Is that how we want to fight drugs? Is that worth it?

 

traffic laws can be enforced in a different way other than having a guy with a gun and a vest using it as a means to see what else they can figure out. There would be exceptions - dui related incidents they need to still do.  And maybe this would let them do more of them because that’s a stupid reason many die each year.  Double positive. 
 

warrants can be served other ways. 
 

this doesn’t even have to mean significant decrease in number of police. There’s plenty of **** to do if they’re not patrolling like sharks. 
 

theres also revenue considerations. 
 

why do they have quotas? Why is issuing a range of traffic tickets a month a thing we want them thinking about and working into their routine?

Things like traffic court and dmv are flooded with dealing with that nonsense too. This would free them up to do other things that keep them backlogged forever. 
 

there’s a lot of little wins to get here if it’s done thoughtfully. 
 

and oh maybe we’ll have less rioting because black dudes getting shot by police stops being a seemingly every 5th day thing. 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I don’t think his point is to shut you down. 
 

i realize he made an earlier post with “let’s move along” but I think that’s more just his opinion whereas this is a specific thought. 

 

I'm not saying it was done consciously, but when your response to a reasoned commentary is that you haven't been through it what you're doing is dangerous, that's what it is.  And anybody that is a non-combat person that's done much advising/consulting for the military or the government where they've been critical of the military has seen it. 

 

It is simultaneously an effort to appeal to emotion and intimidate people being critical of their culture and organization.  And unfortunately it isn't uncommon among the police and the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not saying it was done consciously, but when your response to a reasoned commentary is that you haven't been through it what you're doing is dangerous, that's what it is.  And anybody that is a non-combat person that's done much advising/consulting for the military or the government where they've been critical of the military has seen it. 

 

It is simultaneously an effort to appeal to emotion and intimidate people being critical of their culture and organization.  And unfortunately it isn't uncommon among the police and the military.


The thing is the commentary isn’t always reasoned.  You just think it is.  And because you haven’t dealt with a situation that is even close, through training or real life, you don’t see that.  
 

Ive got no problem being critical of the cops or the military.  I’ve done it plenty here.  But in my experienced opinion, this isn’t a case to get spun up about.  Now if I were insisting that everything the police do is okay and tried to say “you haven’t been there so you don’t know” as a justification why police don’t ever do wrong, you may have a point.  But that isn’t this and your point is wrong.

 

@tshilemade a good comparison to you talking about economics.  There are some base things anyone can comment on.  But you being more experienced will bring a more heavily weighted voice.  If this were about money, I’d defer to you.  When it is about security and confrontation, I’m gonna bet I’m a little more knowledgeable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:


The thing is the commentary isn’t always reasoned.  You just think it is.  And because you haven’t dealt with a situation that is even close, through training or real life, you don’t see that. 

 

Then it should be relatively easy to point out where it isn't reasoned.  Rather than declare, move on, what I'm doing is dangerous, etc.  You say, this is where you're wrong and why you're wrong.

 

Cops, especially those working in high gun crime cities, should be trained on how to deescalate a pursuit with somebody that might be armed.

That training should include the ability to end a chase with a suspect that wants to surrender and is following instructions without the suspect being killed.

That didn't happen in this case.  Either this cop didn't follow his training or there is an issue with his training.

 

When people say something that's wrong, I don't tell them they are wrong because they don't have the experience to comment on what they are commenting on and what they are doing is dangerous.  I explain why they are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then it should be relatively easy to point out where it isn't reasoned.  Rather than declare, move on, what I'm doing is dangerous, etc.  You say, this is where you're wrong and why you're wrong.

 

Cops, especially those working in high gun crime cities, should be trained on how to deescalate a pursuit with somebody that might be armed.

That training should include the ability to end a chase with a suspect that wants to surrender and is following instructions without the suspect being killed.

That didn't happen in this case.  Either this cop didn't follow his training or there is an issue with his training.

 

When people say something that's wrong, I don't tell them they are wrong because they don't have the experience to comment on what they are commenting on and what they are doing is dangerous.  I explain why they are wrong. 


Well I thought this issue had already been explained but I’ll try the quick version once more.

 

the idea that you expect the officer to recognize and react “appropriately” when a suspect goes from armed suspect fleeing from a shots fired situation to unarmed trying to surrender is unrealistic.  You can debate if training needs to be changed, though I don’t think it is realistic to train for this, but to fault the officer here is ridiculous. 
 

I am curious to hear your idea of how he should have deescalted in that .8 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:


Well I thought this issue had already been explained but I’ll try the quick version once more.

 

the idea that you expect the officer to recognize and react “appropriately” when a suspect goes from armed suspect fleeing from a shots fired situation to unarmed trying to surrender is unrealistic.  You can debate if training needs to be changed, though I don’t think it is realistic to train for this, but to fault the officer here is ridiculous. 
 

I am curious to hear your idea of how he should have deescalted in that .8 seconds.

 

First, it isn't really 0.8 seconds.  As I've already stated, it is the whole chase.  Even once the kid stop, It is a good few seconds from when the kid stops running and the cop shoots.  So the solution is to do things to minimize the chance you'll have to make that decision in 0.8 seconds.

 

Then, why did he decide to shoot when he did?  What caused him to shoot then and not earlier in the chase?

 

I've said multiple times in this thread, the problem appears to have been Adam turning around.  If that's the case, then an easy thing is when you're chasing them and yelling at them to stop and do other things then also tell them to not turn around.

 

From watching this and other shootings, it also generally occurs to me that cops don't seem to understand that distance, cover, and getting people prepared for the next step are their friends.  They seem to get way too close to people too quickly without having the person get into some sort of submissive position first.  I'm not at all sure why the cop got as close to the kid as he did without having the kid on his knees with hands behind his head.  If you're worried somebody is going to shoot you, getting within 10 feet of them with nothing between them and you doesn't seem so smart.   Most criminals aren't practiced shooters or even fighters.  A little distance will increase your chance of not being hurt pretty greatly.  So my other piece of advice would be once Adam has stopped rather than keep moving towards him is to actually take a few steps back.  Then if he does shoot, there's a better chance he'll miss.  This is more true for some of the other cases, like the case where the guy got shot after going to sleep in the drive through.  The guy is clearly a bigger and stronger guy than the cop.  I don't understand why the cop doesn't have him get on his knees and have his hands behind his back before trying to handcuff him.

 

Generally my advice would be:

 

1.  Know a head of time what things are most likely to cause you to shoot.  That's training.

 

2.  Communicate clearly to the person you are pursing not to do the things that are going to cause you shoot.  In general, in this case the cop's directions are poor (i.e. show me your hands.)  What do you want the person to actually do?  Do you want the hands over their head, out in front of them, what?  But the cop should know what he wants done and how to communicate it clearly.  That's training and practice.

 

3.  Before getting too close and exposing yourself to more direct danger have the person get in a submissive position.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Coroners Often Blame Police Killings on a Made-Up Medical Condition

 

A day after police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee against George Floyd’s neck in Minneapolis, killing him, a county medical examiner began an autopsy. His preliminary findings seemed to conflict with what people had seen in the viral video footage of the May encounter: Though the video showed Floyd repeatedly telling the officer he couldn’t breathe, the examiner wrote that there were no signs Floyd had suffocated. Floyd’s death, the examiner added, was likely due to a combination of his underlying medical conditions, being restrained, and “potential intoxicants” in his system. 

 

It wasn’t the first time a medical examiner or coroner shied away from implicating the police following a high-profile killing. After officers in Colorado restrained 23-year-old Elijah McClain and injected him with ketamine last year, a medical examiner’s office said it couldn’t determine whether McClain died from an accident, natural causes, or a homicide. “The decedent was violently struggling with officers who were attempting to restrain him,” the coroner’s report stated. It added that medics believed McClain had “excited delirium,” a controversial diagnosis that is sometimes applied to people whom police believe are acting manic because of cocaine or other stimulants. (McClain had no history of stimulant drug use, and no such drugs were detected in his body when he was admitted to the hospital, the coroner report noted.) “It is unclear if the officer’s action contributed as well,” the report concluded.

 

In September, prosecutors in Tucson, Arizona, announced they would not charge police officers in the April death of a 27-year-old man they had restrained naked, handcuffed, and face down on the ground with a spit hood over his head, after a medical examiner’s office found cocaine in his system. The man, Carlos Ingram Lopez, said he couldn’t breathe and repeatedly begged for water, but the medical examiner’s office couldn’t determine whether the officers’ use of restraint had killed him.

 

In Floyd’s case in Minneapolis, the medical examiner ultimately published the full autopsy report and ruled the death a homicide in June, but only after Floyd’s family paid independent investigators to conduct a second autopsy that concluded asphyxia (suffocation) occurred. And even then, the examiner blamed heart failure, not suffocation, for his death, and noted that fentanyl intoxication and heart disease may have been contributing factors.

 

Why are coroners often reluctant to implicate police in killings? To find out, I turned to Justin Feldman, a researcher at Harvard’s FXB Center for Health & Human Rights who studies police violence and medical examiners. More often than you might expect, he explained, politicians and police pressure medical examiners to change people’s death certificates, though there’s no public evidence suggesting that happened in the cases of Floyd, McClain, or Lopez.

 

Coroners also make lots of mistakes—in more than half of cases Feldman studied, they didn’t classify police killings as police killings. And certain medical researchers, along with the company Axon, which produces Tasers, have collectively made it easier for investigators to blame deaths on drugs instead of police force.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Just saw this.  The police didn't waste any time in letting the public know nothing has changed.  When in doubt, use excessive force.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, China said:

 

Just saw the. The police didn't waste any time in letting the public know nothing has changed.  When in doubt, use excessive force.

Some people were wondering if today's verdict would make cops think twice. I'm thinking it does the opposite. They're hot-headed, undertrained bullies who care more about showing who's boss

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now, I'm really hoping that the narrative being pushed here turns out to be untrue. 
 

For lots of reasons. Including me wishing that things like that aren't believable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched video with the girls aunt, and she says that when the cop shot, the knife was on the ground - not in her hand.  When she went over to the police, some were standing around laughing while her niece is dead on the ground.  
 

I saw a brief video of the cop and he doesn’t even appear to be bothered standing over her dead body.

 

Unreal.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Blue lives matter is an extremely bad take for a police officer to have after one of is colleagues shot a 15 year old girl to death, regardless.... 🙄

 

I hope that’s not what happened 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Listening to the voice and follow up remarks, it sounds like the guy with the camera is the one that said Blue Lives Matter.  Anyone hear something else?

I think you may be right.  The man that comes into frame from the left is the one shouting it.  Now, whether or not one of the cops said it to provoke him or he saw a Blue Lives Matter decal on one of the cruisers, I couldn’t tell you.  But the yelling in clip is coming from the guy with the camera.  At least that’s what it appears to me from that tweet.

This is a ****ed up situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...