Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Gamebreaker]

Today I watched video where one cop shot a deer in the head just because it wouldn't get out of his cruiser's way, then drove off leaving the dead carcass in the road blocking traffic. It's almost as if they want any reason to pull out their gun and use it. 

The DoJ report on Baltimore is only news to people who don't know Baltimore or have their head stuck in the sand. It has been that way since I was in high school. And things won't change until collectively, police departments accept accountability for their failings and start making real changes. 

[Destino]

Unless they end a lot of careers at the top and hire people that run against the old school ways of police and community interaction to replace them, what good is that report going to do?  Instead we usually just see the chief replaced.  If you owned a business and found out your managers were telling employees it was ok to throw things at your customers, precisely as your store manager had trained them, would you really trust those same managers to change the culture?  A change at the top isn't enough.  Cultures resist change by definition.  You've got to get most of that think out of top positions.

 

[visionary]

This sounds like an early scene from a mystery tv show.  Man....

 

[dfitzo53]

Crazy and sad. It sounds like everyone is keeping a level head though. 

[Kosher Ham]

Had no idea that you could get shot....because you stole a car. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Kosher Ham

[Gamebreaker]

7 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Had no idea that you could get shot....because you stole a car. 

Which incident are you talking about? Because if it's the LA incident, they shot TO DEATH an innocent man. If you or I did that it would be murder, when they do it it's just Tuesday. 

[Gamebreaker]

I don't know if this has been posted yet. But...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-man-charged-fatal-shooting-hoodlums-complaint-article-1.2743504

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raleigh-shooting-kouren-thomas-chad-copley-lawyer-black-mans-accused-shooter-is-george-zimmerman-2-0/

Looks like this guy saw the George Zimmerman case and figured he could get away with it too. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Gamebreaker

[Bozo the kKklown]

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/191738331-story

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON - D.C. police are investigating after a video posted on Twitter shows a uniformed officer lifting a woman off of the ground and pinning her to the side of a police SUV.

In the video, the officer can be heard questioning the woman before lowering her back down to the ground.

FOX 5’s Bob Barnard spoke with the woman in the video who said she had done nothing wrong prior to being lifted by the officer. She told Barnard that she was involved in a verbal argument with a man, who she claimed was harassing another woman on the street. She believes that the responding officers perceived her as a threat which led to her being pinned against the vehicle.

 

 

 

[visionary]

Goes on for a bit.

[Commander PK]

6 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/ 191738331-story

 

 

 

 

Not surprisingly, the video starts after he already has her up against the car.  I guess we just have to take "Mac and Cheeks" word for it on the "No CONVO.  Dawg. WTF" part.  I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that whatever happened before the recording started provides a damn good reason for her being pinned up against the truck.  

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Not surprisingly, the video starts after he already has her up against the car.  I guess we just have to take "Mac and Cheeks" word for it on the "No CONVO.  Dawg. WTF" part.  I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that whatever happened before the recording started provides a damn good reason for her being pinned up against the truck.  

 

Just out of curiosity, what kind of action, on her part, do you imagine would justify that?  

 

[Commander PK]

44 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just out of curiosity, what kind of action, on her part, do you imagine would justify that?  

 

Without knowing the facts...I will guess refusing to comply with his orders to settle down.  They were called to the scene for an argument between a man and a woman.  She was arguing with a man.  

And what exactly was he doing besides holding her against the truck?  He didn't hit her, pepper spray her, taze her, or shoot her.  Once the female officer showed up he let go of her.  Nothing else happens...I don't even see a "use of force" here with the video as is.  

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Without knowing the facts...I will guess refusing to comply with his orders to settle down.  They were called to the scene for an argument between a man and a woman.  She was arguing with a man.  

And what exactly was he doing besides holding her against the truck?  He didn't hit her, pepper spray her, taze her, or shoot her.  Once the female officer showed up he let go of her.  Nothing else happens...I don't even see a "use of force" here with the video as is.  

 

1). Tell you what. Tomorrow, walk up to a cop, grab him by the arms, lift him off the ground, and pin him against a car. 

Then explain to him that heck, you didn't do a thing to him, because you didn't shoot him. 

Maybe it's just me, but I somehow suspect that you're going to wind up with some broken bones, and a conviction for assault. 

2). So, in your opinion, police officers are permitted to use force against people for "failing to comply with his orders to settle down"?

I think that might be a fundamental difference between our positions. 

I think they're authorized to use force, to defend themselves (or others), to prevent a crime which is in progress, or to perform an arrest. (Just curious. Was this person arrested?)  (I honestly don't know.)

[Gamebreaker]

7 hours ago, Painkiller said:

 

Not surprisingly, the video starts after he already has her up against the car.  I guess we just have to take "Mac and Cheeks" word for it on the "No CONVO.  Dawg. WTF" part.  I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that whatever happened before the recording started provides a damn good reason for her being pinned up against the truck.  

 

And somehow she didn't get arrested. If you aren't arresting her, your crotch being that close to her body with her feet dangling in the air is not how you deal with citizens who obviously didn't break any laws. 

Oh yeah, and I definitely caught your insinuation that the witness to this isn't credible because of the name of her twitter handle. Because clearly, anyone with a twitter handle that you don't like is lying 100% of the time. 

6 hours ago, Larry said:

 (Just curious. Was this person arrested?)  (I honestly don't know.)

 

Nope. She wasn't arrested. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

The Fox 5 link has an interview with the woman, who is a teacher. She was not arrested. 

If an average citizen does that to her, it's considered at least assault and maybe sexual misconduct crime.

Good to see @Painkiller blindly defending the cop though. 

 

And believing the video is not credible because of her Twitter name. 

[Commander PK]

16 hours ago, Larry said:

 

1). Tell you what. Tomorrow, walk up to a cop, grab him by the arms, lift him off the ground, and pin him against a car. 

Then explain to him that heck, you didn't do a thing to him, because you didn't shoot him. 

Maybe it's just me, but I somehow suspect that you're going to wind up with some broken bones, and a conviction for assault. 

2). So, in your opinion, police officers are permitted to use force against people for "failing to comply with his orders to settle down"?

I think that might be a fundamental difference between our positions. 

I think they're authorized to use force, to defend themselves (or others), to prevent a crime which is in progress, or to perform an arrest. (Just curious. Was this person arrested?)  (I honestly don't know.)

 

1.) I would not do such a thing to a cop because that would be criminal behavior and I would be charged accordingly.  Cops are empowered to enforce our laws.  I am not empowered to enforce our laws.  Cops have the authority to use the minimum amount of force necessary to gain compliance with people who do not comply with their lawful orders.  

2.) It is not my opinion that officers are empowered to use force against people that refuse to "settle down."  They ARE empowered to use force in that situation if necessary.  Officers do this lawfully everyday.  This is how the situation in question MAY have transpired, again we don't know for sure because we only have half a video...

"hello, ma'am...you need to stop arguing and come talk with me."

woman refuses and ignores, continues to argue

"ma'am you need to calm down and come talk to me NOW"

woman continues to refuse and ignore the officer.  Either doesn't hear him or acts like she doesn't hear him...

Officer grasps woman's arms and tells her "get over here now!"  (She has refused two lawful orders of a peace officer...a crime) and he physically takes control of her in an attempt to bring the situation under control, placing her against the truck.  

Mac starts rolling tape at this point.

Assuming my assumption about the above situation is correct...the officer is not bound to wait it out until she finally decides to chill out.  He showed as much restraint and patience as he is reasonably required to do.  This same type of thing happens every single day everywhere in America.  

On the other hand, maybe he jumped out of his cruiser and immediately went to grabbing the woman without any verbal direction whatsoever.  Depending on what was happening...that action may also have been warranted.  Again, as is, I don't see a use of force here.  She was manhandled, but that is not necessarily a use of force.  

To remove all doubt, in the absence of evidence to the contrary I will always trust the officers.  This is what we pay them to do.  Lawfully maintain the peace and maintain order.  Getting hired as a cop isn't the same as getting a job delivering pizzas.  There is a vetting process, which includes screening for morals, ethics, and trustworthiness.  Some bad ones slip through the cracks, just like with any other profession...nothing is fool proof.  However, a lot of times what Joe Citizen thinks is something worthy of them being fired is actually them doing their job correctly to the letter of the law and policy.

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

1.) I would not do such a thing to a cop because that would be criminal behavior and I would be charged accordingly.  Cops are empowered to enforce our laws.  I am not empowered to enforce our laws.  Cops have the authority to use the minimum amount of force necessary to gain compliance with people who do not comply with their lawful orders. 

 

OK, so you've decided to grant them another situation in which force is allowed.  "[T]o gain compliance with people who do not comply with their lawful orders " 

Just to be clear, could you specify what you mean, by "lawful orders"?  Cause I can see two ways that that phrase can be interpreted.  One is "Orders where the legislature has passed laws, specifying that police officers have the authority to issue such orders (and in what conditions)."  The other is "any orders which have not been declared illegal." 

[Commander PK]

51 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

OK, so you've decided to grant them another situation in which force is allowed.  "[T]o gain compliance with people who do not comply with their lawful orders " 

Just to be clear, could you specify what you mean, by "lawful orders"?  Cause I can see two ways that that phrase can be interpreted.  One is "Orders where the legislature has passed laws, specifying that police officers have the authority to issue such orders (and in what conditions)."  The other is "any orders which have not been declared illegal." 

I'm not granting them anything.  The law grants them this authority already...to force compliance if necessary with their lawful orders if those orders are not obeyed.  

If you are arguing with somebody in a public place, causing a disturbance where the Police have to be called to the scene...and you continue to argue, continuing to make a scene despite the presence of the officers or after being given verbal direction to stop arguing.  You are  1.) Disturbing the Peace/Disorderly (misdemeanor criminal behavior) and 2.) disobeying a lawful order of a police officer to stop behaving in that manner.  (Also a misdemeanor) 

Perhaps the officer's actions in this particular case stopped the situation from escalating to something where one or both parties could have ended up in handcuffs.

[MisterPinstripe]

12 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Perhaps the officer's actions in this particular case stopped the situation from escalating to something where one or both parties could have ended up in handcuffs.

If your calm and in control you dont just pick up a woman and hold her in the air up against a vehicle. You only do that if you are angry/agitated. De-escalating a situation would be an officer calmly dealing with it. If anyone kept it from escalating it was the woman who calmly spoke to the cop even though he was holding her in the air up against a car.

If this woman was out of control then she wouldnt have reacted so calmly to what he did.

 

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

I'm not granting them anything.  The law grants them this authority already...to force compliance if necessary with their lawful orders if those orders are not obeyed.  

If you are arguing with somebody in a public place, causing a disturbance where the Police have to be called to the scene...and you continue to argue, continuing to make a scene despite the presence of the officers or after being given verbal direction to stop arguing.  You are  1.) Disturbing the Peace/Disorderly (misdemeanor criminal behavior) and 2.) disobeying a lawful order of a police officer to stop behaving in that manner.  (Also a misdemeanor) 

Perhaps the officer's actions in this particular case stopped the situation from escalating to something where one or both parties could have ended up in handcuffs.

 

1)  I note that you didn't answer my question.  Please define "lawful order". 

(I'm not necessarily asking for a legal definition.  I'll freely admit that I don't know the laws, myself.  I'm debating the way I think things ought to be.  And I'm asking for the same from you.  To pick a silly example:  If the officer orders her to flap her wings and make a noise like a chicken, is that a "lawful order"?  I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.  But, if it's a "lawful order", then does the officer have the authority to assault someone who does not act like a chicken on command?) 

2)  I will point out that, in the circumstance you described, You've created a scenario in which someone is breaking the law, and the officer is physically preventing them from continuing to break the law.  No need to invent any "to force compliance with lawful orders" authority, there.  They're already covered under the authorities I listed. 

(Although, I would assert that the correct response to someone who is disturbing the peace, and refuses to stop, is to inform the person that they are committing a crime in front of a police officer, who has not arrested them yet.  And that they might want to stop doing that, before he changes his mind.  If they continue, then arrest them.  That the officer should escalate the situation to arrest, before he escalates it to assault.) 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Larry

[Commander PK]

18 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

If your calm and in control you dont just pick up a woman and hold her in the air up against a vehicle. You only do that if you are angry/agitated. De-escalating a situation would be an officer calmly dealing with it. If anyone kept it from escalating it was the woman who calmly spoke to the cop even though he was holding her in the air up against a car.

If this woman was out of control then she wouldnt have reacted so calmly to what he did.

 

With all due respect this is spoken like somebody who has never had to do this or something similar a day in his life.  The cop was not out of control.  He was not yelling, screaming, hitting her, tasing her, or shooting at her.  From my perspective, his actions may have been what calmed her.  

We don't know what happened just prior to this video being captured.  Context would be nice.  I get the sense that some of you don't really care what happened just prior, because you firmly believe hat nothing that could have happened would justify his actions.  Unfortunately, we will never find common ground this way.  

[MisterPinstripe]

9 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

With all due respect this is spoken like somebody who has never had to do this or something similar a day in his life.  The cop was not out of control.  He was not yelling, screaming, hitting her, tasing her, or shooting at her.  From my perspective, his actions may have been what calmed her.  

We don't know what happened just prior to this video being captured.  Context would be nice.  I get the sense that some of you don't really care what happened just prior, because you firmly believe hat nothing that could have happened would justify his actions.  Unfortunately, we will never find common ground this way.  

I do care what happened prior, I dont assume cops are guilty at all. We both speculated from different viewpoints as to what happened before that. But I cant fathom how lifting her up into the air and holding her against a car in the air is showing restraint. If he had pulled her to the side or even handcuffed her if she wasnt cooperating I wouldnt have had much of an issue if she wasnt listening.

Its kind of like a video where police were catching a car thief that hit one of their officers with the car while running away. He got out of the car and lay down on the ground with his hands behind his head. I completely understand the cops being mad, angry, worried about their fellow officer. Thats a natural reaction. The problem is they decided they had the right to dish out justice by beating on him even though he gave himself up without a fight.

Even if he shot an officer, if he gives himself up and isnt struggling they do not have the right or authority to assault someone because they are mad or dont like what they did. Not their job, its the job of the judge and jury. Im just using that as an example, obviously this guy didnt go that far. But its that type of mentality that is the problem.

You dont have to be yelling or screaming to be out of control btw. Heck you could be seething with anger and be very quiet and deliberate.

Edited August 17, 2016 by MisterPinstripe
Cuz

[Gamebreaker]

@Painkiller I get the sense you've already decided what happened prior to the video beginning. I don't see the point of continuing to argue a made up scenario that hasn't been verified at all. If another witness comes forward and verifies the version of events depicted by the twitter user, will you still be defending the officers actions? 

Too many of these situations keep happening...I can't remember if this is the incident where the officers were trying to confiscate the phones of witnesses recording or if it was the incident where the off-duty officer nearly hit a man and than tried to fight him. 

[Commander PK]

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1)  I note that you didn't answer my question.  Please define "lawful order". 

(I'm not necessarily asking for a legal definition.  I'll freely admit that I don't know the laws, myself.  I'm debating the way I think things ought to be.  And I'm asking for the same from you.  To pick a silly example:  If the officer orders her to flap her wings and make a noise like a chicken, is that a "lawful order"?  I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.  But, if it's a "lawful order", then does the officer have the authority to assault someone who does not act like a chicken on command?) 

2)  I will point out that, in the circumstance you described, You've created a scenario in which someone is breaking the law, and the officer is physically preventing them from continuing to break the law.  No need to invent any "to force compliance with lawful orders" authority, there.  They're already covered under the authorities I listed. 

(Although, I would assert that the correct response to someone who is disturbing the peace, and refuses to stop, is to inform the person that they are committing a crime in front of a police officer, who has not arrested them yet.  And that they might want to stop doing that, before he changes his mind.  If they continue, then arrest them.  That the officer should escalate the situation to arrest, before he escalates it to assault.) 

A "lawful order" is an order given where failure to give the order would/could result in a crime being committed.  A "lawful order" is given to stop a crime from being committed.  

Examples of "lawful orders"

* Telling a fleeing felon to stop

* Telling two people to stop arguing in a public place

*Telling a person to shut off their engine and provide their license and registration.  

*Telling a person to leave an establishment after the proprietor has already asked them to leave and they have refused.

*Telling a person to drop the gun or I will shoot"

*Telling a person to put down the knife or I will shoot"

etc. etc.  

There is not a law that a person is required to flap their wings and cluck, so ordering someone to do so is not a lawful order and they are not bound to obey unlawful orders.  You are allowed by law to resist an "unlawful arrest" although I would suggest you let your lawyer deal with that after the fact in court.  Fighting the Police is almost never a good idea.  

 

 

[MisterPinstripe]

10 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

A "lawful order" is an order given where failure to give the order would/could result in a crime being committed.  A "lawful order" is given to stop a crime from being committed.  

Examples of "lawful orders"

* Telling a fleeing felon to stop

* Telling two people to stop arguing in a public place

*Telling a person to shut off their engine and provide their license and registration.  

*Telling a person to leave an establishment after the proprietor has already asked them to leave and they have refused.

*Telling a person to drop the gun or I will shoot"

*Telling a person to put down the knife or I will shoot"

etc. etc.  

There is not a law that a person is required to flap their wings and cluck, so ordering someone to do so is not a lawful order and they are not bound to obey unlawful orders.  You are allowed by law to resist an "unlawful arrest" although I would suggest you let your lawyer deal with that after the fact in court.  Fighting the Police is almost never a good idea.  

 

 

Those examples being lawful orders also depend on the situation. Lets so you are on your property with your car running. A cop cant just come onto your property and lawful request you give them all of that information (this is assuming you werent running from the cops/just driving out on the road and pulled into your driveway). Say someone is legally open carrying, a cop telling you to drop your gun is not a lawful order. So context in all of these cases are pretty important, on both sides. And yeah, while you may be correct to resist an unlawful arrest, it would probably be pretty darn stupid to do so.

Its kind of like people who walk without looking across streets because pedestrians have the right away. You are correct, but its pretty stupid not to look because you having the right doesnt mean you wont get hurt badly or killed.

Edited August 17, 2016 by MisterPinstripe
CUZ I WANT TO.