• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hercules56 said:
You're joking, right?

Who is gonna deal with all the criminals if we get rid of the police?
Click to expand...

Note that it says "de-fund the police" not "de-fund policing". Policing would still occur just not using the current broken model that so frequently resembles a badly run military occupation more that it resembles actual police work.
 
Hercules56 said:
You never called 911? You would never call the cops if you needed help or to report a crime?
Click to expand...

I would call 911 id needed, but I'm not a black person living in a poor neighborhood where reporting a crime is likely to end up with an innocent person, possibly me, wrongly arrested or even killed by the police that respond.
 
If this thread isn't only about bad behavior, here's the bodycam footage of the Nashville cops taking down the school shooter. It's only available on Youtube and while I wouldn't describe it as at all graphic, it is intense. Great job by these heroic officers!
 
Brainster said:
If this thread isn't only about bad behavior, here's the bodycam footage of the Nashville cops taking down the school shooter. It's only available on Youtube and while I wouldn't describe it as at all graphic, it is intense. Great job by these heroic officers!
Click to expand...

That is the thing about the US system, with 18,000 organisations with police powers and about 12,000 actual independent police forces, there will organisations with a good culture.
 
jimbob said:
That is the thing about the US system, with 18,000 organisations with police powers and about 12,000 actual independent police forces, there will organisations with a good culture.
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of cops I deal with are about as good as could be expected.

It's a matter of the police being connected to the community they serve. We can training this and oversight that and none of that is ever going to matter.


Although in the mass shooting context there is that this is the one bright spot w/r/t police militarization. They should get better at dealing with mass shooters and other dramatic violence. It's when they see mortal danger that isn't there that's the problem. Especially when they see the people as more a problem and less as neighbors.
 
Suddenly said:
I think the vast majority of cops I deal with are about as good as could be expected.

It's a matter of the police being connected to the community they serve. We can training this and oversight that and none of that is ever going to matter.


Although in the mass shooting context there is that this is the one bright spot w/r/t police militarization. They should get better at dealing with mass shooters and other dramatic violence. It's when they see mortal danger that isn't there that's the problem. Especially when they see the people as more a problem and less as neighbors.
Click to expand...

Similarly, there's also the concept that most cops will generally be acting or at least trying to be acting in line with what they believe they're supposed to be doing. It's just that, say, 100 good, professional actions don't really excuse even 1 crime in any decent profession, at last check. Nor do cops and others having far too commonplace and widespread an issue with turning a blind eye to wrongs being done by other cops help much.

It's totally fine to argue that cops do good work 99% of the time (questionable, of course, but that's generally the case with numbers pulled out one's wazoo). It's just no excuse for the wrongs that are actually done, nor a defense for the actual trends in play.
 
Last edited:
Ohio police recommend LGBTQ+ organizers cancel drag event, organizers refuse

On Thursday, Chester Township police chief Craig T. Young issued an official recommendation that LGBTQ+ organizers cancel a scheduled drag brunch and storytime event set to take place at the Community Church of Chesterland over the weekend.

In response, organizers instead announced plans to move forward with the event regardless of police presence, relying on private, hired security.

“In order to protect all involved, the children attending, and the residents of Chester Township, law enforcement officials have made an official recommendation to the event organizer, and the Community Church of Chesterland to cancel this event,” Young said in a written statement released Thursday morning, citing “a realistic threat that organized protests and counter-protests could result in violence.”
Click to expand...

In a written statement, organizer Mallory McMaster — president of The Fairmount Group, a Chardon-based firm that produces LGBTQ+ and social justice events — said police cited violent social media rhetoric, the possible presence of designated hate groups and the recent mass killing at a private school in Nashville, Tennessee, as potential safety concerns during the meeting, but offered few specifics.

“Most of the meeting was spent talking about money,” McMaster said in a statement co-signed by Community Church of Chesterland leaders and Element 41 owner and head chef Paul Mendolera. “Our organizers were asked how police officials could justify to their trustees such a large expenditure to keep the LGBTQ community safe. We ask, how can you justify denying an expenditure keeping the LGBTQ community safe?”
Click to expand...

“Maybe the police should tell the Proud Boys not to come instead of telling the gays to hide,” McMaster said.
Click to expand...

These people have every right to organize and run this event! Maybe the fascist police should do their jobs instead of siding with other fascists!
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I work for a police force, calling the US's imitation of one an army of military occupation is not an innacurate statement. They are kitted out as military personnel use military tactics and their mission is most definitely not to serve the public trust and protect the people.
Click to expand...

You work for an Irish police force, not an American police force. Your post is an opinion and nothing more...which you are entitled to. However, out of curiosity, just how much interaction have you had with any American police? I don't think it's a stretch to suspect your opinion is based on what you see on TV which is going to be negative as that's what makes the news. After all, how much of the everyday American police work that is done are you familiar with? Things like this:

Police cam shows officer saving baby's life:



or Bodycam video captures moment police discover 3 children lost in woods


or Bodycam Shows Police Rescuing Kidnapped Child in Atlanta

 
Stacyhs said:
You work for an Irish police force, not an American police force. Your post is an opinion and nothing more...which you are entitled to. However, out of curiosity, just how much interaction have you had with any American police? I don't think it's a stretch to suspect your opinion is based on what you see on TV which is going to be negative as that's what makes the news. After all, how much of the everyday American police work that is done are you familiar with? Things like this:

Police cam shows officer saving baby's life:



or Bodycam video captures moment police discover 3 children lost in woods


or Bodycam Shows Police Rescuing Kidnapped Child in Atlanta

Click to expand...

Yes, I work for a police force that actually does its duty.
 
Stacyhs said:
That is not an argument that supports your claims; it's just an irrelevant retort. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's based on ignorance.
Click to expand...


What you seem to be trying to sweep under the rug is that the issue isn't when the cops do something well, it's when they do something evil.

Giving them kudos for doing their job is fine, even though most people don't expect to be put on pedestals for doing what they are paid to do. But the fact that cops misusing their positions of authority, acting like outright bigots and racists, welcoming graft, condoning corruption, reveling in the abuse of people in their custody ... all of these and more are the problem.

And the frequency of such occurrences is not a defense either. What percentage do you think is okay? How many illegal arrests, beating, or murders should we condone or just overlook in our efforts to defend the cops?

This doesn't even address the problem of the 'blue wall of silence', with the so-called 'good cops' refusing to report the bad acts of other officers, much less outright obstruction of investigations into them. In my opinion they are every bit as guilty as the bad actors they are covering for.

How many 'good cops' does that leave us with? And how many remain cops after they have done their duty instead of covering for their buddies?
 
I've (white guy, of course) always had acceptable interactions with US police, even when they were applying the bracelets (minor crap). [emoji12]
But the US is horribly slow to change and progress. While I'd say our cops are better than 40 years ago, the problems are systemic and even worse in some spots.

As I type this, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is on the verge of being virtually dismantled and rebuilt because it's been found nearly every officer is a member of the dept's six or seven internal 'gangs'. Often along racial lines.
Bad conduct (some violently criminal), tattoos, cover-ups... the whole shebang. [emoji15]
 
bruto said:
I'm not sure anyone is really complaining that only the bad cops make the news, only that, just as we don't conclude that all houses burn down, we don't conclude that all cops are bad.

Too many cops are bad, and the news is important, but the fact that there is great significance to a bad minority does not make the majority bad. And yes, the mutual protection of bad cops by others is also bad, and ought to be addressed and stopped, but it's an overstatement to make a blanket suggestion that all US cops are militarized monsters. There's a great need for police reform all over the place but there are plenty of times also when they're just what we need.

I do find it odd how often we hear bad cops being excused as "rotten apples," to stress their minority, and often, it seems, to say we should tolerate them, while disregarding the whole point of the old maxim about one rotten apple spoiling the barrel. Rotten apples, however great their minority, need to be removed.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. I agree with you 100%. Well said.
 
Stacyhs said:
You work for an Irish police force, not an American police force. Your post is an opinion and nothing more...which you are entitled to. However, out of curiosity, just how much interaction have you had with any American police? I don't think it's a stretch to suspect your opinion is based on what you see on TV which is going to be negative as that's what makes the news. After all, how much of the everyday American police work that is done are you familiar with? Things like this:

Police cam shows officer saving baby's life:



or Bodycam video captures moment police discover 3 children lost in woods


or Bodycam Shows Police Rescuing Kidnapped Child in Atlanta

Click to expand...

Or the kid who was abandoned in Philadelphia by her mom because the police took her away and beat the mom, then paraded the kid in front of cameras to show how great they were.

That is a problem going by police press releases.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And of course cops who sweep their coworkers crimes under the rug are not actually bad cops.
Click to expand...

Who has said that? Certainly not me.

If they were you would have to say the vast majority of cops are bad. Things like turning off body cameras so that it doesn't capture a coworker beating someone does not make them a bad cop.
Click to expand...

Would you like to present some evidence that "the vast majority of cops" do that? What you're doing here is inventing your own 'facts'.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And how outrageous that those cops got convicted for murder just because they stood around watching while their training officer murdered someone. Not bad cops themselves.
Click to expand...

Your sarcastic responses are dishonest because no one had said that. In fact, Bruto said this, which I then I agreed with:

And yes, the mutual protection of bad cops by others is also bad, and ought to be addressed and stopped, but it's an overstatement to make a blanket suggestion that all US cops are militarized monsters.
Click to expand...

Stop putting words in people's mouths, especially when they've said the opposite.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Or the kid who was abandoned in Philadelphia by her mom because the police took her away and beat the mom, then paraded the kid in front of cameras to show how great they were.
Click to expand...



What is wrong with you? A man stole a car with a 9-year-old child inside, the police find the car with the thief still inside. And you just make up a crap story out of whole cloth. Stop being dishonest. Your three posts do nothing to support you argument and only damage your credibility.

ponderingturtle said:
That is a problem going by police press releases.
Click to expand...

Is it? At this point, I can't believe anything you say as you've shown you just make things up.
 
Stacyhs said:
Who has said that? Certainly not me..
Click to expand...

But it's inherent in your argument. If most cops aren't bad then merely covering up for a coworker isn't bad. Evidence indicates most cops do it, and they certainly all know which of their coworkers revel in the violence.
 
Stacyhs said:
What is wrong with you? A man stole a car with a 9-year-old child inside, the police find the car with the thief still inside. And you just make up a crap story out of whole cloth. Stop being dishonest. Your three posts do nothing to support you argument and only damage your credibility.



Is it? At this point, I can't believe anything you say as you've shown you just make things up.
Click to expand...

Oh great now you deny facts, not surprising really.

Thank God this never happened

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/rickia-young-sues-police-union-facebook-post-toddler-son-rcna2057

That would be horrible but thankfully it isn't true apparently.
 
It's such a shame that whenever there is a chance for a good cop to stand up to the bad ones there is never a good cop around only other bad ones.
 
New Mexico police fatally shoot resident after responding to wrong house: "A very dark day"

Police in New Mexico fatally shot a man Wednesday night after responding to the wrong house during a domestic violence call, authorities said, in what the police chief described as a "chaotic scene."

The shooting took place shortly before midnight on Wednesday as officers from the local Farmington Police department responded to the call, according to a statement released by the state's Department of Public Safety. The statement said the New Mexico State Police Investigations Bureau had been asked to investigate the incident.

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered.

The statement said officer body camera video shows that as the officers backed away from house, the homeowner opened the screen door armed with a handgun. One or multiple officers fired at least one round, striking the homeowner, who police identified as 52-year-old Robert Dotson.
Click to expand...
 
shemp said:
New Mexico police fatally shoot resident after responding to wrong house: "A very dark day"
Click to expand...

Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.
Click to expand...
I am guessing that the police, presuming without double checking that they were at the right house, could not imagine any situation other than the one they were locked into. Anyone who appeared, gun or not, would be an enemy. The vaunted concept of a "good guy with a gun" doesn't come into effect if the police enter the situation sure that they are the only good guys around. I think in such situations there's a momentum that becomes very difficult to deter.

We can't know, but it seems not unlikely that if the person had opened the door, no protest would have kept them at least from threatening him, pinning him to the floor, or the like, before knowing they were at the wrong house, and arresting him for resisting arrest even after knowing, and not entirely unlikely that if he had appeared at the door without a gun they'd have shot him anyway.

I mean, the headline "Cops go to wrong place and kill the occupant" is not exactly an everyday occurrence, but it's become surprisingly unsurprising.
 
Darat said:
So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.
Click to expand...

Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.
 
Suddenly said:
Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.
Click to expand...


Or you could be carrying something which apparently to an unfortunate number of cops 'looks like a gun'.

A cellphone, for example. Or a toy truck. It's rather amazing how many things can 'look like a gun'.

And also, of course, they might 'look like they're reaching for a gun', which removes the need for mistaking any unsimilar object for a gun.
 
Suddenly said:
Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.
Click to expand...

Unworkable? Bah. You sound like one of those people who refuse to listen to reason when it comes to your opposition to murder dinos.
 
Darat said:
Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.
Click to expand...

I'm sitting in Melbourne intl airport omw back home and seriously questioning if I really want to. Saw this one on my reddit feed, as I live in NM and was going to post it here.

Police can't even be bothered to get the right house and of course it's legal for the homeowner to blast away and legal for the cops to.do the same. What a wonderful place.

ETA doesn't matter that is an open carry state in this instance. And actually we only are outside of city limits anyways.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.
...
Click to expand...

"Open carry state" is likely unimportant here, though once he opened the door and was in public view "brandishing" becomes a possibility.
The local laws are ever changing and always confusing here, but...
Barring a tight state like Massachusetts (maybe) or large cities like Chicago or especially NYC where legal ownership of a handgun is nigh impossible, you could walk around your residence with it on your hip and be perfectly legal. In fact you could walk around your yard as well as long as, in either case, the "public" has no direct view.

"Carry", open or concealed, refers to being armed in public.

Waiting on being schooled here on some state I hadn't considered... like I said, "confusing". [emoji3]
 
Last edited:
Jim_MDP said:
"Open carry state" is likely unimportant here, though once he opened the door and was in public view "brandishing" becomes a possibility.
The local laws are ever changing and always confusing here, but...
Barring a tight state like Massachusetts (maybe) or large cities like Chicago or especially NYC where legal ownership of a handgun is nigh impossible, you could walk around your residence with it on your hip and be perfectly legal. In fact you could walk around your yard as well as long as, in either case, the "public" has no direct view.

"Carry", open or concealed, refers to being armed in public.

Waiting on being schooled here on some state I hadn't considered... like I said, "confusing". [emoji3]
Click to expand...
Not that I doubt the "brandishing" charge could be brought, but it would be ridiculous to do so when the man is standing in his own house, responding to a perceived threat. Brandishing is defined as displaying a gun in the commission of a crime, or as an act of intimidation. But self defense is not intimidation, obviously, or the use of a gun would instantly nullify self defense, turning it into the crime of brandishing. New Mexico is a "castle doctrine" state. I think the only way brandishing could be invoked would be if the cops were able to assert that the man was aware that they were police and intended to scare them away despite that knowledge.
 
I'd probably like to see the cam vid before agreeing. I was going on the snippet in shemp's post...

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered."

Example: whipping open the door with a gun down at your side, to scream at the noisy kids in the street, or even ones cutting across your lawn (suburban neighborhood sort of thing) would, well certainly could, be cited as brandishing.

Doing it when there are cops on the other side... priceless. [emoji15]
 
Jim_MDP said:
I'd probably like to see the cam vid before agreeing. I was going on the snippet in shemp's post...

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered."

Example: whipping open the door with a gun down at your side, to scream at the noisy kids in the street, or even ones cutting across your lawn (suburban neighborhood sort of thing) would, well certainly could, be cited as brandishing.

Doing it when there are cops on the other side... priceless. [emoji15]
Click to expand...

Sure, it could, but that's not what happened. The man apparently came to the door after hearing someone knocking or calling out, but not immediately. He did not open the door to them with gun drawn. We do not know whether he was awake or asleep (it was after midnight), whether he understood who was at the door, or, of course these days, whether the police were telling the truth. I notice that in the statement linked, we are told that the video shows Dotson coming to the door armed with a gun, but does not say that Dotson brandished, pointed, or fired the gun. He came to the door with it, and was shot. His wife then opened fire but put down the gun and complied when the police identified themselves to her. Note that last bit. She, apparently, also did not know initially who they were. Whatever those cops say they did to identify themselves, neither occupant of the house seems to have known who they were.

Now of course we know there are plenty of trigger-happy idiots out there who are ready to shoot first and ask later, and a house in which both occupants have guns at the ready does not look too encouraging, but I think there's more info to come. We'd better wait for the video.
 
Whoa, whoa... we're heading into the weeds.

I didn't mean to say the guy was aggressive or whatever and deserved what happened (that was snarkily poor phrasing on my part).
Just a response to your comment on brandishing and an example of how behavior can affect context.
And I haven't seen the vid nor read any articles so I'll have to hold off deciding what happened. Though the Mrs. getting shots off... and surviving, is a new wrinkle. Surprised it didn't turn into a standoff. [emoji15]
But we agree... 'shoot first, ask questions later' is crap policy. This outcome is far too common here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom