Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Gamebreaker]

he was put on administrative leave, not suspension.....common with any use of weapons complaint.

 

it was not a disciplinary action

 

 

The Huffington post article linked to this thread disagrees with you. This is the very first sentence. "A California police officer was suspended after video surfaced showing him unholster his gunwhile arguing with a man recording him in a small city north of San Francisco. "

 

So yeah, that's a disciplinary action. 

[twa]

Huffpo is not the best source for such.....it does bring clicks though.

 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rohnert-Park-Police-Officer-Who-Pulled-Gun-on-Man-Placed-on-Paid-Administrative-Leave-320989391.html

 

added

 

take away the huffpo assertion and the commentary in the video and simply observe the video

 

approaching a officer with your hand in your pocket and refusing to remove it results in a drawn weapon

 

and some folk are shocked.....virgins are ya?

Edited August 11, 2015 by twa

[DogofWar1]

The cigarette got me.  Let me just go ahead and give you cancer.  Why not.  You don't seem to care that officers asked a citizen to put out a cigarette, for various reasons, but I am simply focusing on the cancer causing one.  I would not want someone to smoke in front of me, force me to breath in a cancer causing substance.  So, just go ahead and get some cancer, because you don't seem to care.

 

Hey, I'm as opposed to 2nd hand smoke as anyone, but if you've got a right to smoke it, you've got a right to smoke it.  Cop could have finished giving her the ticket and everyone could have been on their way as quickly as she could have put it out.  Instead, he escalates and orders her to put it out, which he doesn't have the authority to do.

 

 

Someone above said that in order for a police order to be lawful, it needs backing.  What does that mean?  Does that mean probable cause? Does that mean reasonable suspicion?  What is the difference between the two?  If a cop believes, through knowledge and experience, that a crime is afoot, should they just stand by and let it happen?

 

Now, or course police can't just order you to do anything, but what exactly constitutes reasonably suspicion or probably cause?  I could quote out of my law for dummies book, but I bet a standard citizen doesn't know the difference.

 

Automobile exception generally requires reasonable suspicion, but searches then can only extend to areas and containers in which the potentially offending item is supposedly placed.  Comes up sometimes in drunk driving cases where officers search tiny closed/locked containers and find small amounts of weed or something.

 

Reasonable suspicion is oftentimes discussed as reasonable "articulable" suspicion, that is, you are suspicious of a specific crime occurring at the time and can state which crime.

 

It's why the Bland case is so wacky, she asks him what she's being charged with and he's just flatly silent for like 3 seconds before doing anything else.

 

To the gun comment.  Law abiding cop can't have his gun out?  Leaving the fact that the NRA would have something to say about that, I didn't know that people can now read minds.  I guess cops can because, according to some people, they know exactly what someone they just encountered is going to do.  They seem to be able to predict their actions, predict future events.

 

It's not about reading minds.  It's about reasonably responding to the situation.

 

By the logic of "we don't know, therefore display maximum force," police should pull guns on EVERYONE.  Again, we don't know if Granny has a gun in her bra or not.  Anyone wearing a second layer of clothes in the winter could be hiding a gun.  Carrying a work briefcase?  Gun.

 

That is a patently ridiculous world to live in, and most other countries (and most police standards here in the US) understand that.  It's one of the reasons that cop who beat up the black girl at the pool got in trouble (and ultimately resigned), he pulled his gun on people who did not represent a sufficient threat for him to pull his gun.  You can't pull your gun because you subjectively are paranoid that a threat exists while all sensory evidence says there isn't one.  There are often constitutional implications (liberty w/out due process), police guideline implications (generally not allowed to do that), and common sense implications.

 

Someone talked about the abuse of power and how arrests by cops leads to failing a background check which leads to not getting hired.  I will simply take this approach.  Who made you judge?  It is not the job of the cop to play judge.  So, who should he not arrest and who should he arrest?  I understand that certain circumstances do dictate situations where you would not make an arrest, but for all the other times when someone is breaking the law, do you give a break on Sunday or only to people that are nice to the police?  Who sets the standards?  What exactly is fair?

 

The point about background checks in corporate America is that an officer arresting someone needs to be arresting them for the right reasons.  If they've committed a crime worthy of arrest and there's evidence of it sufficient to arrest, by all means, police should arrest them.  At that point mistakes are on the state records, background checking companies, and the corporation the person has applied to.

 

However, there is a not insignificant number of cases where there is no crime and a person is arrested, or charges are effectively made up and later dropped (or nolle prosequi), or rights are violated during the stop which leads to the person being found not guilty during trial or charges being dropped before trial.

 

In those kinds of cases, there is a very real harm to police abuses and violations that extends into job searches.  It's another reason police must be held to a higher standard when performing their duties.  Lax standards lead to abuses, and those abuses have far reaching consequences beyond simply how many days a person has to sit in jail.

 

Lastly, Sovereign Citizens are whack jobs, plain and simple.  If you feel strongly against my comment, leave the U.S., form your own country and do what you feel like.  And, if you don't like it, don't call 911 and bother the cops that, apparently, violate your rights.

 

Just wondering, are you saying if we feel strongly against your entire post, or just the part about the Sovereign Citizen movement?

 

Because I lean towards agreement on that, but feel strongly against the rest (and would contest what follows, but I want to make sure I've got my interpretation right before I respond).

[MrSilverMaC]

If you feel strongly against my comment, leave the U.S., form your own country and do what you feel like. And, if you don't like it, don't call 911 and bother the cops that, apparently, violate your rights.

Most of this post was poorly done, but this part is the most ridiculous.

U.S citizens who do not like that police are treating them in an in-American fashion should leave.

Expectation of a professional/lawful police force is out of the question so don't call them if you don't like when they abuse rights granted to every citizen in the very documents that formed our country.

I wonder if the police would mind giving me and the rest of those who shouldn't be calling them a refund of my tax dollars for almost 20 years of payments since they can't be bothered with doing the job they are paid for. Hell if I were a republican I might demand such incompetence be rewarded with minimum wage since any dumbass with a gun can take away people's rights and shoot unarmed citizens.

Also, since you bring up the nra, there isn't a civilian alive (who isn't rich) who could unholster a firearm after pulling up to a strangers house they had been repeatedly passing in their car and threaten the home owner for video taping them and get away with only a paid "administrative leave" from their job. That's called assault with a deadly weapon and probably at least 5 other felonies the d.a would be more than happy to tack on for good measure.

[Gamebreaker]

Ok, I checked other news sources and you are right about one thing. He was placed on leave and not suspended (yet). HuffPost is the only news source claiming he was suspended. 

 

Yet police officers should pull their guns out whenever they are within the immediate vicinity of unarmed civilians? Riiiight. Your edited version of events doesn't explain why the cop was even harassing the citizen in the first place. Doesn't explain that if he pulled his gun because the citizen had his hands in his pocket, than why didn't he put his gun away when the citizen took his keys and wallet on put them on his vehicle. He knew nothing was in his pocket then, yet still didn't holster the gun. Actually now that I've gone back and watched the video again, the citizen used his free hand to empty his pocket early in the confrontation. So the officer knew his pocket was empty before he even asked him to remove his hand. In case this hasn't been explained to you enough times already: it is not illegal to have your hands in your pocket, and it is not illegal to film police. The police officer had zero reason to do anything he did, which is why the citizen wasn't charged with a crime, because he wasn't committing one. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? 

 

He's a sad man who tried to intimidate and bully a citizen he's supposed to be protecting and serving, and hopefully he won't have the ability to this ever again. Furthermore, he did not approach the officer as you claimed. He didn't move one step between the time the officer left his vehicle to the moment he pulled the gun. 

[twa]

Furthermore, he did not approach the officer as you claimed. He didn't move one step between the time the officer left his vehicle to the moment he pulled the gun. 

 

He came from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the police vehicle, at which point the officer exited the vehicle and asked him to show his hand.

approached clearly, refused to show himself not a threat

 

emptying a pocket does not mean you are unarmed

 

I'm right again.

[Gamebreaker]

He came from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the police vehicle, at which point the officer exited the vehicle and asked him to show his hand.

approached clearly, refused to show himself not a threat

 

emptying a pocket does not mean you are unarmed

 

I'm right again.

 

No, you said he approached the officer, when he was not moving at all when the officer pulled the gun. I know you live in your own reality, but your fantasies don't work in the real world.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gamebreaker

[twa]

the officer was in the vehicle he approached, the gun was pulled when he refused to show himself not a threat.

 

if he was still moving towards the officer after that the gun would be pointed at him.and the command to stop would issue.

 

what happened BEFORE he pulled the gun determined his actions

[mistertim]

He had moved towards the car to record the license plate and then had baked off some. The cop then got out of his car and walked towards him...the guy wasn't really moving at that point and had moved back when the cop drew his weapon.

 

Also, that cop didn't act or look like he was the least bit worried about his safety. Usually when a cop draws his gun because he feels that he is in danger he will move back to get some space between himself and the suspect and get in to a defensive position, even if the weapon is still at the low ready. This guy just looked annoyed, drew his gun and then proceeded to stalk towards the guy over and over with his gun hanging down by his side.. That's an incredibly stupid tactic if you think the person has a weapon. That whole thing had "I'm pissed and now I'm going to show you that I am by trying to intimidated you with my gun" written all over it. I don't buy for a second that the cop was actually worried about the guy having a weapon. It was just an excuse, IMO.

Edited August 11, 2015 by mistertim

[twa]

a valid excuse though. one reinforced by the refusal to show hand

[mistertim]

a valid excuse though. one reinforced by the refusal to show hand

So again, if he was afraid for his safety and that's why he drew his gun why did he act pretty much the opposite of how cops usually act when they truly fear for their safety and they need to draw their guns? Everything from the way he acted after drawing his gun to his facial expression and body language screamed "bull****" to his apparent assertion that he drew on the guy because he believed he was in danger. He knew damn well he wasn't in any danger but the hand in the pocket thing gave him a catch all excuse to try to intimidate the guy and act on his irritation or frustration.

[PokerPacker]

Note to self: It is perfectly okay to draw a gun on somebody if they don't show me their hands.

[Gamebreaker]

Note to self: It is perfectly okay to draw a gun on somebody if they don't show me their hands.

 

Oh no no no, not you! Never you! Unless you're a cop....then you can do whatever the hell you want. 

[Major Harris]

I pay for Serve and Protect, not Harass and Neglect.

Did you read that on a Prius or a subaru?

[Kosher Ham]

Did you read that on a Prius or a subaru?

 

haha. Neither. I am certainly not a tree hugger, or a fan of that life.

 

Besides that, I have never met anyone with a natural tan complexion...that drove either of those.  

[twa]

Oh no no no, not you! Never you! Unless you're a cop....then you can do whatever the hell you want. 

 

 except talk to someone on the street, that would be unconstitutional.

[mistertim]

 except talk to someone on the street, that would be unconstitutional.

Yeah, nothing says "Hello, I would like to engage you in conversation and have a cordial discussion" like stalking after someone with a gun in your hand.

[Destino]

As I've said before cops always have a reason, at least they do by the time they file a report and make and official statement. Trying to beat them with their own rule book or the law isn't going to solve much. It's reasonable if they say so, unless you have very good video footage showing otherwise and they've done something serious. Even then people always give them the benefit of the doubt.

You were resisting if they say so. You were threatening if they say so. Their word is evidence.

[twa]

You were resisting if they say so. You were threatening if they say so. Their word is evidence.

 

are you some kind of constitutionalist nut? 

[PleaseBlitz]

As I've said before cops always have a reason, at least they do by the time they file a report and make and official statement. Trying to beat them with their own rule book or the law isn't going to solve much. It's reasonable if they say so, unless you have very good video footage showing otherwise and they've done something serious. Even then people always give them the benefit of the doubt.

You were resisting if they say so. You were threatening if they say so. Their word is evidence.

 

 

Which is why the people have started filming every interaction with the police.  Instead of your word against a cop (who will get the benefit of the doubt in most cases), it becomes their word against video evidence.

 

What is really shocking to me is that every police department in the country hasn't had a pre-shift briefing to the effect of "please keep in mind that it is 2015 and 95% of all people have a video recording device on their person at all times.  They are called smart phones and they are ubiquitous.  You should just assume that you are being filmed at all times and knock off the bull****."

Edited August 11, 2015 by PleaseBlitz

[visionary]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/631228769798328320

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/631230339264983041

[Fred Jones]

One of the reasons I have posted in this thread is I actually know a couple of cops.  Have talked to them over the years and such.

 

I see a couple of things happening, just my opinion.  I see police departments slowly changing, and adapting, and becoming more accountable for their actions.  Not going to happen overnight, but in the coming years I think they will get better.  Not saying you won't eliminate every incident, but hopefully you will see better cops.  I can also see less people wanting to be cops.  Why would you want to work for a place that has people that commit the crimes outlined in this thread.  Why would you want to work for a place where your every move is monitored, you have to deal with BS everyday and your every action is questioned.  People in this thread also want to take your already low pay away.  Millions of Monday morning QB's watching cell phone videos questioning your actions.  Yep, see recruitment going down.

 

Dog, some good responses to my post.  Since I am not a cop, and only have my law for dummies book, I cannot offer rebuttal to your comments about probable cause and reasonable suspicion.  Though, my second hand smoke comments stand.  I have the right to breath clean air.  Keep your nasty away from me.  Your comments about police abuse is not without merit.

 

As far as pulling their guns out, it is easy to sit here and read media reports and make "holistic" comments about how every police officer should know when to pull their gun out under every possible scenario and be able to recognize every threat they see.  It is unknown if people in this thread can understand, but I look at it like being a soldier.  Everyone handles combat in their own way and everyone handles high stress situations in their own way.  No, not saying the streets are like a war zone so stop.  But, it stands to reason that some cops don't deal or handle stressful situations as well as others.  Be easy to get rid of them all, but being that I believe recruitment will drop, people may get their wish because there won't be a lot of cops around for people to videotape and post on social media for other people to critique.  I am not offering up excuses, but offering up some reasons.

 

Maybe I should have been a cop as I will put money on the table that I handle stress better than many people in this thread.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Fred Jones

[Fred Jones]

Let's see,

 

The father of the black teen shot by police:

""From what I heard, he was there with some friends and they had a confrontation. They start shooting at the friends, and he just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time,"

 

The aunt of the black teen shot by police:

"her nephew wasn't carrying a gun and never fired at police. He was "running for his life" just like everyone else, she said, when gunshots rang out."

 

Sounds to me like another teen violently shot by police.  Violating the constitution, pulling guns out, taking people rights away.  And to top it off, video clearly shows people pleading with the cops to help the kid after he was shot by said police.

 

Where is the justice, why are the cops not already in jail themselves?  Oh, wait.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/us/ferguson-protests/index.html

[MrSilverMaC]

Assuming the type of people who don't want to apply are the same ones applying because they are little tyrants and are only becoming cops because they need a power-trip fix Is a fine side effect.

[DogofWar1]

Sounds to me like another teen violently shot by police.  Violating the constitution, pulling guns out, taking people rights away.  And to top it off, video clearly shows people pleading with the cops to help the kid after he was shot by said police.

 

Where is the justice, why are the cops not already in jail themselves?  Oh, wait.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/us/ferguson-protests/index.html

 

It's worth noting you're the first person to talk about this specific instance of policing/shooting.

 

There's probably a reason for that.  

 

In your post above, you've painted the side seeking police reforms as one that would oppose the use of force even when a suspect is known to have and has used a gun.  That is definitely not the case.

 

I, and I imagine the others who wish to see reform in this thread, am more than fine with police conduct in cases where there is a clear and demonstrated threat (as opposed to a paranoid and hypothetical one).  There is a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between Bland, DuBose, Rohnert Park, and Hammond incidents compared to this Ferguson one.  It's a pretty obvious difference too, in this Ferguson case someone actually has a gun, a demonstrated danger; in the previous cases, the "danger" to the officer has not been demonstrated, it's imagined by the officers, and a long stretch at that.

 

I see police departments slowly changing, and adapting, and becoming more accountable for their actions.  Not going to happen overnight, but in the coming years I think they will get better.  Not saying you won't eliminate every incident, but hopefully you will see better cops.

 

I hope this is the case.  The interesting thing that police will find is that accountability will likely be easier than they thought.  Remove the bad apples, and the heat will die down.  Heck, the vast majority of the people don't care about illegal searches and seizures, they're fine with that remedy being in court.  Keep your beating/kill count low by tossing the few officers who make it high, and your station is suddenly a-ok.

 

 

I can also see less people wanting to be cops.  Why would you want to work for a place that has people that commit the crimes outlined in this thread.  Why would you want to work for a place where your every move is monitored, you have to deal with BS everyday and your every action is questioned. 

With regards to the monitoring and red tape, with great power comes great responsibility.

 

There's a reason the standard to convict someone of a crime in the US is (or at least supposed to be...post 9-11 murky activities notwithstanding) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and also a reason why otherwise slam dunk cases can be tossed on technicalities.  Freedom and Liberty are two strong ideals.  We do make some small sacrifices in the name of the social contract, but we also have protections in the form of the amendments, as well as further statutes.  False positives are despised and we seek to prevent them.

 

Police have the power to take away someone's freedom and liberty.  For all the monitoring and red tape that bureaucrats/employees who don't hold people's lives in their hands have to go through, both in the public and private sectors, it should be no surprise at all that accountability is asked for from those who do have such power, and that there's concern where there isn't accountability and outrage where there are abuses.

 

 

People in this thread also want to take your already low pay away.

 

If you're referring to us wanting to take away the pay/jobs of the abusive officers, certainly.  If you abuse the power to take someone's liberty, that's a grave offense.

 

if you're referring to people in this thread wanting to cut pay for police generally, I can't speak for others, but I am most definitely NOT for that.

 

In fact, if it were up to me, tomorrow the money flowing to police around the country would increase significantly.  Police are underpaid, as are teachers, and maybe other workers in plenty of industries.  Police do indeed have a unique situation in that their line of work carries significant risk.  I'm all for increased wages for them (of course, that means more taxes too).

 

However, low wages do not excuse poor performance, not with so much at stake, and I think while plenty of people would want to see police paid more, they'd probably want to see some more accountability and cleanup before more tax money goes to police, which isn't unreasonable.

 

 

As far as pulling their guns out, it is easy to sit here and read media reports and make "holistic" comments about how every police officer should know when to pull their gun out under every possible scenario and be able to recognize every threat they see.  It is unknown if people in this thread can understand, but I look at it like being a soldier.  Everyone handles combat in their own way and everyone handles high stress situations in their own way.  No, not saying the streets are like a war zone so stop.  But, it stands to reason that some cops don't deal or handle stressful situations as well as others.  Be easy to get rid of them all, but being that I believe recruitment will drop, people may get their wish because there won't be a lot of cops around for people to videotape and post on social media for other people to critique.  I am not offering up excuses, but offering up some reasons.

 

It's interesting that you brought up soldiers, because as MrSilverMaC noted above, soldiers have a higher bar for engagement with force than police often do.

 

Drawing a weapon can have constitutional implications, and it will often have police guideline and rule implications.  Doing so when it is not appropriate is not a small matter.  Cops have resigned and been fired for such things.

 

The key is whether there's some sort of reasonable independent reason for drawing a weapon.  A cop can use their experience and training, but when the situation is explained objectively, other people need to reach the same conclusion the officer did with regard to safety.

 

One case from a short while back was the beating at the pool of the African American girl, where the cop drew his gun as people tried to help the girl mid-beating.  He resigned pretty quickly and was blasted by the police chief.  The initial story was that he felt threatened when the boys moved towards him.  But a reasonable objective examination (boosted by the tape) shows that the alleged danger the officer felt was unsubstantiated.  In those cases, drawing one's weapon is inappropriate.

 

The pool beating case is similar to the Rohnert Park case.  Is it reasonable to construe any man with a hand in their pocket as a potentially deadly threat where drawing a weapon is a reasonable response?  That's a broad category, with pretty problematic implications, seeing as pockets are ubiquitous, and are meant to have hands in them.  You need something more than that, just as in the pool case they needed something more than the two boys moving to try and help the girl pinned under the officer.  Heck, I'd argue that two people moving towards an officer is much closer to the line than merely standing there with one's hand in one's pocket.  If the pool case is inappropriate, the Rohnert Park case is doubly so.

 

If an officer is so easily stressed that they draw their weapon even when there's no evidence of independent and objectively apparent danger, then perhaps they should be re-assigned to desk duty.  An overly fearful cop is a danger to he community, all it takes is one incident where things get a little out of hand when their fears take hold of them, and someone innocent can end up dead.

 

The "we're gonna run out of cops" argument is a bit too alarmist I think.  There are plenty of cops in the US who follow the rules just fine.  There are entire countries where LEOs manage to adhere to principles similar to our own rights.  We've had some people mention that individuals were turned away for being "overqualified."  Hire those guys.

 

Moreover, how do we separate reasons for dropping recruitment numbers?  Isn't it just as possible that people don't want to join the police, not because of the monitoring and red tape, but because they don't want to be a part of what is perceived to be (and sometimes is) a corrupt system?

 

Think about Enron, I imagine a decent percentage of people would seek employment elsewhere because of the negative reputation and implications stemming from Enron's own conduct.  Similar principles may apply here.  We can't become alarmist about police recruitment numbers until we can separate those not applying because of the public's conduct from those not applying because of their potential employer's conduct.

Edited August 12, 2015 by DogofWar1