That might be easier in some US police forces (with maximum IQ limits) than in other forces.

'Riot King' Brian Rossomanno Has Become the Police Department's Protest Hammer

eta: remembering that protesting it is constitutionally protected.

Do you really believe this way? Of course there are on rare occasions bad police who do bad things or police who are basically good but in a stressful situation make the wrong decision.

I can't speak for Nessie, but personally, I would like to see more accountability following those occasions. There is a fundamental flaw in the way some local justice systems work that does not allow for self-correction and that is causing problems.

As we learn from this CNN article;

Quote:

"Kevin Sumner is one of the best and most highly trained school resource officers in Kentucky,"

Which should set everyone's mind to rest.

He's the gold standard all his fellow officers aspire to.

But, at least, this issue was addressed and corrected. In theory, it shouldn't happen again.

US police are amazing, it's just the civilians who don't have the training to properly interact with them.

http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/c...ing/759465001/

http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/c...deo/763499001/

Assault by panic attack.

That's a new one.

Gosh, I wander what could have caused the officer to decide to start shooting?

Seriously? It's OK to shoot at someone just because they're filming you? Or did I miss something?

Apparently it's also OK to charge someone with resisting arrest and remand them in custody even if there aren't any actual charges to warrant arresting them.

Dave

Of course. Filming a police officer could cause them to feel threatened, which logically entitles them to conduct a summary execution of the offender.

This 9-year veteran Georgia cop accidentally grabs his gun instead of his Taser and shoots a teen in the arm. Bodycamera footage included...


http://www.macon.com/news/local/crim...179200731.html

There have been several instances of this, most notorious the “BART” shooting of a resisting suspect. The officer involved was convicted of manslaughter, as I recall.

The deputy drew the gun from his pocket? Thinking he had a Taser in there?

This flies in the face of what has become standard procedure. Every department around here mandates that the Taser be carried on the opposite side of the firearm on the duty belt in a special cross-draw holster. Also, the current-model Tasers are bright yellow, and visibly “light up” when activated. You can’t just pull the trigger.

I’m familiar with an earlier incident (not local) where the department had it’s officers carry the firearm in the normal position and the Taser in a “leg drop” holster on the same side.
A female officer drew her firearm instead of the Taser and shot and wounded a suspect.
At that time, the Taser model being sold was black.

A factor here is that officers now carry so many “tools” that in the heat of a confrontation or actual fight, it requires deliberate thinking to get the right item from your belt.
I carry firearm, Taser, pepper-spray, ASP baton, cuffs, and cell phone.

This is partially why I advocate taking guns away from most cops. They have several other weapons at there disposal that are much more appropriate for most situations. What's the effective range of taser and what is the typical range at which cops shoot suspects? Or maybe make the cops keep guns in their car with a log kept of every time they take it out?

Giving them a hard time?

The kid ends up being something like a deadpan comedian...

"Could y'all maybe label those things so people don't get shot like that"

Police officers with body cameras are as likely to use force as those who don’t have them


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f98_story.html

Under my current hypothesis, I would predict that although body cameras may have increased recording uses of unnecessary force on video, they did not result in a rise in of local prosecutors pressing charges or obtaining convictions on LEOs. If there are no consequences for unnecessary violence, there is no impetus for LEOs to change or correct their own bad behavior. The situation either does not change or gets worse.

I didn't realize anyone actually expected them to change behavior, at least right away. I've just thought of them as providing evidence for when cops are accused of misbehaving. Which if they have an effect on behavior would take a few highly publicized case of cops getting convicted of a crime or getting out of conviction with the video evidence.

It turns out a cop can't get convicted of littering let along murder/manslaughter in the US.

Edit to add, what upchurch said.

That was local to my area, I think. If I recall correctly, the victim was having some sort of psychotic episode, was naked, and up a tree. The taser MAY have been appropriate.

Drop bare?

Exactly. If anything as other cops see what others get away with, there is no reason to modify behaviour.

A news article that aired on NPR last night reports on a study done on the Washington DC Police department’s use of body cameras:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...zen-complaints

This was a rather extensive study, and conclusions were that there was little effect on things like citizen complaints, arrests, etc. etc.

They noted that it does help with prosecutions.

Of civilians, that is. Cops don't have to worry much about trivial irritants like that. That's what they have unions and 'internal' investigations for.

Until they do have to worry about consequences for their misdeeds the cameras will have limited effect on their behavior.

Maybe it needs more time.

... because everyone is already on their best behavior:
Also, they studied cops with and without body cameras, not before and after body cameras were instituted.

In new york the cops defense for raping a teen is that it was legal sex between cops and people in their custody. And that is legal.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/artic...one-in-custody

Anecdote:

We have a couple of long-neglected vacant houses next door. Occasionally, we see people hanging around them who clearly shouldn't be there. When this happens, we call the police. A night or two ago, when coming home late, we saw a small light coming from the basement stairwell. For the first time, we actually debated whether or not to call. It had just turned cold and it could reasonably have been just a homeless guy trying to get out of the wind. Or, it could have been yet another before-or-after moment of some nefarious act. We couldn't tell.

So, we asked ourselves: do we call and potentially risk an unnecessary shooting of someone who might just be cold? That's where we are. We rely on the police, but our trust in them has been eroded to the point that we'd almost be willing to let some things go unreported in order to prevent innocent folks from getting hurt.

In the end, we did call it in. We got a call back saying that it is an empty lot (it's not), even after confirming the address. We had no indication that anyone actually checked it out and whoever it was eventually disappeared when we weren't watching, which wouldn't be hard in the dark.

That one seems to be a little different to the rest, and in some ways more sinister; it doesn't appear to be random brutality by individual police officers who are out of control, but rather politically motivated oppression by police officers who are very much under control.

Dave

The hesitation you describe is widespread in poor communities and has been for some time. That it is growing and spreading from there instead of being reduced is not a good turn of events.

New York courts have also found that they have no responsibility to protect someone who is a victim of a violent crime while they are there watching the crimein progress.

Tough job, being a NYC cop.

That is indeed scary.

There was a DNA match, and they were in a position of power over her. What more do they need? Whether she said yes or not, they couldn't pretend it was informed consent.

Elsewhere I have pointed out that the UK is far from perfect, but that there is an acceptance that improvements are possible and desirable, which is what seems to be missing in the US.

here is a recent UK story



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41804382

He offered no resistive force at all. He was put at risk of positional asphyxia. Thick, bully, cops.

In New York City two police detectives are facing as much as 25 years in prison after being arrested and arraigned on a variety of charges. The incident began when two Brooklyn plainclothes officers stopped a vehicle in the Coney Island section last month and found marijuana and prescription drugs. They then placed the 18-year-old female driver under arrest, handcuffed her and placed her in their police van. They then told her two male companions that the woman would be released in a few hours and warned them not to follow the van. This is what the New York Times has reported happened next:

Instead the woman went to a local hospital where she reported being attacked. An examination was performed in which DNA samples were taken. The city medical examiner’s office determined that it contained samples of both detectives’ sperm. The two officers were arrested Friday, immediately suspended from duty and demoted. Local news media has noted that normally when police are arrested fellow officers turn out for the arraignment in a show of support. Yet when Detectives Martins and Hall were arraigned yesterday not one off-duty officer showed up. They were released after making bail (Martins at $250,000 and Hall at $150,000).

.

Nobody I know was hurt by police today, or yesterday, or ever.

You probably missed the story.

So a woman offers a cop sex if he doesn't arrest her, he accepts, and it's not a problem, because, hey, she offered, right?

Not that much power can corrupt weak people.